• 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 .
Montecresto said:
We don't allow smoking at the gas pump either. I don't want anyone to have a firearm on a plane.
Click to expand...
Those are collectivist views. We're in agreement.
TurtleDude said:
and the argument you make is moronic because you suggest punishing millions of lawful gun owners to perhaps stop a few criminals.
Click to expand...
There are tens of thousands of domestic gun deaths annually. That's a significant number of lives lost that should be addressed.
TurtleDude said:
given that terrorists can get guns on planes, I want armed Sky Marshals at least potentially on planes
Click to expand...
That's a collectivist view of the second amendment.
Montecresto said:
That's ridiculous, the only way a legal gun becomes illegal is if it becomes banned by law. A individual using a legal gun to commit a crime becomes a criminal, not the gun, the gun is still legal.
Click to expand...
A gun is illegal if possessed by someone without legal access. A nuclear bomb is legal when possessed by the correct people.
 
Last edited:
Unrepresented said:
Those are collectivist views. We're in agreement.

There are tens of thousands of domestic gun deaths annually. That's a significant number of lives lost that should be addressed.
Click to expand...


rather than beat around the bush, tell us what sort of laws you think will make things better
 
Since the poll seems to be 4-1 in favor of the Second Amendment (as written), I would suspect that any further discussion is a moot point (or, as someone said, mental masturbation).
 
GBFAN said:
Since the poll seems to be 4-1 in favor of the Second Amendment (as written), I would suspect that any further discussion is a moot point (or, as someone said, mental masturbation).
Click to expand...

well there are gun hating statists who claim that the 2A as written does not recognize any right belonging to individuals and one poster has claimed that "shall not be infringed" was actually written to ALLOW all sorts of infringements by the founders
 
TurtleDude said:
well there are gun hating statists who claim that the 2A as written does not recognize any right belonging to individuals and one poster has claimed that "shall not be infringed" was actually written to ALLOW all sorts of infringements by the founders
Click to expand...

Yep - I recognize that. But, then, there are a lot of people out there who believe the moon is made of cheese, too.
 
GBFAN said:
Yep - I recognize that. But, then, there are a lot of people out there who believe the moon is made of cheese, too.
Click to expand...

here is the problem. we all know what the 2A intended to recognize and thus prevent. and for about 140 years, no one disputed that. but in 1934 FDR wanted to pander to the people who were pissing themselves over a crisis created by government-that crisis being the gang wars caused by the idiocy of prohibition. and FDR wanted to get some credit by pandering rather than using current laws or leaving law enforcement where it belonged-at the state level

so to pander he tried to first ban machine guns and then, when his AG said that was unconstitutional, make up some sort of power based on the commerce clause to make LEGAL machine guns too expensive for ordinary people to own. so he ignored the 2A and raped the 10A

and his toadies then had to pretend he did neither
 
TurtleDude said:
here is the problem. we all know what the 2A intended to recognize and thus prevent. and for about 140 years, no one disputed that. but in 1934 FDR wanted to pander to the people who were pissing themselves over a crisis created by government-that crisis being the gang wars caused by the idiocy of prohibition. and FDR wanted to get some credit by pandering rather than using current laws or leaving law enforcement where it belonged-at the state level

so to pander he tried to first ban machine guns and then, when his AG said that was unconstitutional, make up some sort of power based on the commerce clause to make LEGAL machine guns too expensive for ordinary people to own. so he ignored the 2A and raped the 10A

and his toadies then had to pretend he did neither
Click to expand...

The disconnect between the way you started your argument.... "WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE 2A INTENDED"...... and your usual partisan fueled vitriolic screed against FDR is wider than the Grand Canyon and shows that "WE ALL KNOW" - previous little of the same thing when it comes to the Second Amendment since much is largely based on ideology and self imposed belief. Knowledge is not the problem and really has not been for a long time now. Its belief pure and simple and the Scalia opinion in Heller was ample evidence of that.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
well there are gun hating statists who claim that the 2A as written does not recognize any right belonging to individuals and one poster has claimed that "shall not be infringed" was actually written to ALLOW all sorts of infringements by the founders
Click to expand...

You have often accused me of that Turtle but it is your own strawman of your own making. Each time you trot it out of the barn I repeatedly tell you that the use of the modernist term INFRINGEMENTS is intellectually dishonest in the extreme because the term IS NOT used in the Amendment. As such, twisting and perverting it merely shows evidence that your statement is not to be taken seriously by anyone other than those already in that committed corner with the gun lobby.
 
haymarket said:
The disconnect between the way you started your argument.... "WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE 2A INTENDED"...... and your usual partisan fueled vitriolic screed against FDR is wider than the Grand Canyon and shows that "WE ALL KNOW" - previous little of the same thing when it comes to the Second Amendment since much is largely based on ideology and self imposed belief. Knowledge is not the problem and really has not been for a long time now. Its belief pure and simple and the Scalia opinion in Heller was ample evidence of that.
Click to expand...

you are partially correct but I maintain again WE ALL KNOW. people who are objectively honest admit that too. Most anti gun activists damn well know that the 2A prevents federal gun control but that is why those advocates spend so much time pretending the 2A does not say what it obviously does
 
Unrepresented said:
Those are collectivist views. We're in agreement.

There are tens of thousands of domestic gun deaths annually. That's a significant number of lives lost that should be addressed.

That's a collectivist view of the second amendment.

A gun is illegal if possessed by someone without legal access. A nuclear bomb is legal when possessed by the correct people.
Click to expand...

Your simply wrong dude. A gun is legal or illegal by its classification and not by whose using it.
 
haymarket said:
You have often accused me of that Turtle but it is your own strawman of your own making. Each time you trot it out of the barn I repeatedly tell you that the use of the modernist term INFRINGEMENTS is intellectually dishonest in the extreme because the term IS NOT used in the Amendment. As such, twisting and perverting it merely shows evidence that your statement is not to be taken seriously by anyone other than those already in that committed corner with the gun lobby.
Click to expand...

so you no longer claim that "shall not be infringed" does not prevent infringements

do you no longer claim that the founders actually intended "infringements" to be a proper function of the federal government was you once did?
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, take out the underlined part, it will make it more clear.
Click to expand...

That would make it clearer, and if we as a nation agree to that change, so be it. Are you willing to open it up to that process?
 
Boo Radley said:
That would make it clearer, and if we as a nation agree to that change, so be it. Are you willing to open it up to that process?
Click to expand...

well even if the mindless gun haters were to say remove the 2A, they would still have to add an amendment that allows the federal government the proper power to regulate small arms

I'd much rather modify the commerce clause in a way that returns that provision to its obvious intent an thus overrule all those idiotic FDR decisions like Wickard et al
 
TurtleDude said:
now having bullets fly around occupied cabin areas is not what one calls an ideal environment though


and in some cases, someone might get sucked out if they are next to a window that gets totally blown out

HowStuffWorks "What if someone shot a gun on an airplane?"
Click to expand...

Right, so with windows lined up all along both sides of the plane inches apart, I think it a high probability that in a gun fight between terrorists and an air Marshall/Marshall's that a window gets blown out. Even if the passenger next to that window has a seat belt on the plane depressurizes in seconds. No, I prefer adequate screening that denies the possibility whatsoever that anybody boards a plane with a firearm, including the air Marshall's.
 
Montecresto said:
Right, so with windows lined up all along both sides of the plane inches apart, I think it a high probability that in a gun fight between terrorists and an air Marshall/Marshall's that a window gets blown out. Even if the passenger next to that window has a seat belt on the plane depressurizes in seconds. No, I prefer adequate screening that denies the possibility whatsoever that anybody boards a plane with a firearm, including the air Marshall's.
Click to expand...


I disagree. I know what sort of training Air Marshals and Flight Deck officers go through. people who service airlines are not millionaires and can be bribed.
 
TurtleDude said:
well even if the mindless gun haters were to say remove the 2A, they would still have to add an amendment that allows the federal government the proper power to regulate small arms
Click to expand...

That's how the process works. A bit risky for both sides, but might settle the issue.
 
haymarket said:
You have often accused me of that Turtle but it is your own strawman of your own making. Each time you trot it out of the barn I repeatedly tell you that the use of the modernist term INFRINGEMENTS is intellectually dishonest in the extreme because the term IS NOT used in the Amendment. As such, twisting and perverting it merely shows evidence that your statement is not to be taken seriously by anyone other than those already in that committed corner with the gun lobby.
Click to expand...

That's a really interesting perversion of the English language you got going on there ... the amendment says the action (infringing) shall not occur, whereas 'infringement' is a quantization of the acts of infringing ... and you propose this doesn't apply to the discussion?

Can I assume English is your second language, and you're not familiar with the context of the words?
 
Boo Radley said:
That's how the process works. A bit risky for both sides, but might settle the issue.
Click to expand...

the way the courts are going, and the way the vast majority of the academics have gone, it might not need any change in the wording. its pretty tough to pretend men who universally accepted the "reality" of natural rights would author something other than the 2A as people like me see it
 
GBFAN said:
That's a really interesting perversion of the English language you got going on there ... the amendment says the action (infringing) shall not occur, whereas 'infringement' is a quantization of the acts of infringing ... and you propose this doesn't apply to the discussion?

Can I assume English is your second language, and you're not familiar with the context of the words?
Click to expand...

Its akin to claiming "thou shall not steal" was not a prohibition on "Stealing":mrgreen:
 
haymarket said:
You have often accused me of that Turtle but it is your own strawman of your own making. Each time you trot it out of the barn I repeatedly tell you that the use of the modernist term INFRINGEMENTS is intellectually dishonest in the extreme because the term IS NOT used in the Amendment. As such, twisting and perverting it merely shows evidence that your statement is not to be taken seriously by anyone other than those already in that committed corner with the gun lobby.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you arguing?
 
Montecresto said:
Do stop with the hyperbole, it damages your pro second amendment position. For tyranny, see The Patriot Act or the NDAA.

Democrats for Gun Ownership is the only national association that provides support for those Democrats in favor of gun ownership and the defense of the Second Amendment.
Through campaign support, education, and advocacy DFGO works with Democrats at every level of our party in Congress to protect our rights and maintain a strong lobby base whose voices are clearly heard.

DfGO is a solid presence in Washington, D.C. supporting the rights of every American to arm him or herself with knowledge about responsible and safe firearms ownership. Send us an email with the name of your Congressperson and we'll drop by and say hello on your behalf. Help us make our Congress member aware that we're as engaged in policy matters as they should be.


The Senate gun control compromise failed, but that hasn’t stopped individual states from pursuing their own solutions. Connecticut, Colorado, New York and Maryland have passed new gun control laws, and joining them soon is New Jersey, where Governor Chris Christie has announced his support for a proposal to expand background checks for gun purchases, to require parental consent for minors to buy violent video games, to ban purchases of particular rifles, and to make it easier for courts and individuals to commit “potentially dangerous” people to mental health treatment against their will.

IOW, this shouldn't necessarily be framed in partisan terms.
Click to expand...
It's not hyperbole to point out the truth.
 
countryboy said:
What was it intended to prevent?
Click to expand...

well his argument (at least at one time) was as along as you own one gun, your ability to ENJOY your 2A rights is intact. I also believe he claimed that until you could not "exercise" the right (i.e. if you could own NO weapons) there was no infringement. I took his argument to mean that the government could basically ban everything up to a complete and total ban and not violate the 2A

I found the entire argument without merit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom