• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 18.2%

  • No

    Votes: 53 80.3%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Total voters
    66
  • Poll closed .
Lursa said:
YOu probably missed 'my' point but the one I bolded in new info for me...and it is welcome info.
Click to expand...

Good, that's why I posted it for you.
 
Lursa said:
Bummer. That sucks.
Click to expand...

There is an undercurrent that "silencers"may be removed from the NFA list. No one is committing crimes with them and lots of time and effort is eaten up by ATF employees on this. Short Barreled Rifles ought to be removed as well but then again, the entire Act is unconstitutional and should be thrown out along with the odious Hughes Amendment.

anything civilian law enforcement agencies can have,so should other civilians without any obstacles other than showing an ID and swearing you are not a criminal,fugitive etc (in all fairness, only states should be able to prevent felons or addicts from owning guns-the federal government was never given such power)
 
Lursa said:
It's not about 'offense,' it's about security.

How often do you hear of employers abusing employee personal info?
Click to expand...

About as often as you hear about the government doing it.
 
Lursa said:
As yet, over decades, that has not been an issue. Employers have accountablity. Random people do not.
Click to expand...

You give your SSN to tons of people all the time. You're just being paranoid.
 
Cephus said:
You give your SSN to tons of people all the time. You're just being paranoid.
Click to expand...

Not really....and they are all businesses that can be held accountable.

Business, employer....and strangers. Apples and oranges.

With your SSN, anyone can access you bank account as long as they have one of your checks. Or see one of your checks.

There are drawbacks to using SSNs for identification, as we are finding out. But that doesnt mean it's an intelligent move to start handing them out to strangers until more safeguards are in place.

Unless you plan to? If not, why not?
 
Cephus said:
So you're personal friends with everyone in the government?
Click to expand...

I'm not personal friends with employers and businesses either.

You lost this point in your argument. I didnt see you telling me if you handed out your SSN to random strangers.
 
jet57 said:
Who said anything about disarming citizens? Not me.
Click to expand...

If guns were not allowed in malls, theaters, etc as you implied, that would leave citizens who desired to carry disarmed. Or not visiting that venue which of course is their choice. Shame they should have to make that choice.
 
Lursa said:
If guns were not allowed in malls, theaters, etc as you implied, that would leave citizens who desired to carry disarmed. Or not visiting that venue which of course is their choice. Shame they should have to make that choice.
Click to expand...

I never implied anything of the kind. Please go back and review my posts. Have a nice evening.
 
mdw99 said:
I am from Scotland and doing a modern studies assignment at school on the second amendment of the US constitution and would like to gather views from US citizens.
Could you tell me if you think the second amendment needs to be changed or not and give reasons why.
Many thanks
Click to expand...
An American with a gun was able to shoot and stop an Islamic terrorist from beheading a second woman in Oklahoma recently. Europeans may soon regret they don't have the same rights and means of protection as do the American people.
 
Lursa said:
Sorry. While I would love for that to be true, that is not the intent...or an implication...of the 2A. It is strictly intended to protect our right to keep and bear arms to prevent govt tyranny. However it also places no restrictions on that.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It merely uses the government tyranny example. The inherent right to keep and bear arms is affirmed in no uncertain terms, and without restriction.

I found a great article yesterday about the wording of the 2nd Amendment. An expert in the English language analyzed the wording and explained it in great detail. I have it bookmarked on my iPad, I will post a link later when I get to work.
 
Lursa said:
I'm not personal friends with employers and businesses either.

You lost this point in your argument. I didnt see you telling me if you handed out your SSN to random strangers.
Click to expand...

Yet you seem to be concerned about one group of strangers and not about another group of strangers. Why is that?
 
jet57 said:
The gun nuts put their right to carry and .50 cal machine guns over and above the citizen’s right to a peaceful existence with all of the nuts killing people.
Click to expand...
Who's killing people with .50cal machine guns?


....besides the government, I mean.
 
Cephus said:
Yet you seem to be concerned about one group of strangers and not about another group of strangers. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I've already explained that. You ignored it. Perhaps you can review and try again.

For one distinction, all strangers are not created equally. I bet there is a personal example in your own life: your cell phone provider has your SSN, but you wouldnt give it to the guy you chat with while pumping gas. Why not?
 
countryboy said:
I disagree. It merely uses the government tyranny example. The inherent right to keep and bear arms is affirmed in no uncertain terms, and without restriction.

I found a great article yesterday about the wording of the 2nd Amendment. An expert in the English language analyzed the wording and explained it in great detail. I have it bookmarked on my iPad, I will post a link later when I get to work.
Click to expand...

I would be happy to read the link. And happy if it were true. Yes, I believe the 2A means without restrictions but like it or not, I still believe that the intent of the amendment was to prevent tyranny. Possibly because owning firearms as part of day to day life was just the 'norm' at the time.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No, it isn't. My argument is that better weaponry equals better ability to protect one's self. Regardless of nature.


Your misrepresentation of my argument shows you either dint understand or must resort to logical fallacy to feel like you are making a point.
Click to expand...
I understand your argument, but you're contradicting yourself.

You're claiming that with reducing access to guns that human nature still won't be subverted; murder will still occur, with or without (legally available) guns . You'll use your (legal) gun possession as a deterrent, both proactively -- preventing potential criminals from considering violation of your property by fear of you being armed, and retroactively -- physically attacking them with (legal) guns to prevent them from violating your property.

Fair summary?

You also appear to be arguing that it's human nature to take any means to protect one's property and that violent acts including murder are also human nature.

If that's all true, then decreasing legal guns won't stop you from getting one to defend your home, or give the criminal any reason to believe that you're less likely to have one, or be any less prepared to use one. That status quo is seemingly not changed, only access is decreased, and with that, less weapons are available for all parties to continue the war we're having on one another.
TurtleDude said:
that is moronic. why is the murder rate going down while the number of guns in circulation as well as the number of people carrying guns is increasing.

I think those who would take our guns away are in conspiracy with criminals and should be treated the same
Click to expand...
The gun death rate correlates to the percentage of gun owners if you break it down state by state.

ownership-death630.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom