• 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 .
countryboy said:
For one thing, I was posting while driving.

Just because some dims support gun rights, doesn't mean they don't support other oppressive leftist policies. Beside, leftist 2A "advocates" generally have different ideas about the meaning of, "shall not be infringed".

As far as Crispy cream being a republican, puh-leeze.

We'll hafta agree to disagree for now bro. Gotta spend some time with the old lady before nite nite. Take er easy, and have a good night. No hard feelings on my end. :)
Click to expand...

Of course no hard feelings. Stop posting while driving, or somebody else will be kissing the misses good night! :)
 
Montecresto said:
I'm defeating your argument that only the Democratic Party is about gun restrictions!
Click to expand...

I never said that, so stop tilting at straw men

I said every federal gun restriction passed as a statute came from the Democraps
 
Montecresto said:
Well, I just disagree with you. In my estimation, they both are strong arguments.
Click to expand...

Only one has support in the philosophical foundation and the historical and legal record of this nation. The other is of 20th century origin in the federal courts, derived from a perverse legal trick to keep Blacks disarmed in the South. It went like this, . . . Since Blacks were forbidden to serve in the militia, state constitution's right to arms provisions were interpreted by discriminatory state courts to only protect the arms of militia members -- thus laws disarming Blacks were constitutional regardless of Black's citizenship status.

Montecresto said:
The militia clause, lends itself nicely to the collective and the individual right fits nicely with the individual spirit of several of the other amendments.
Click to expand...

And that is a conclusion at odds with foundational constitutional principles (primarily conferred powers and retained rights) and longstanding Supreme Court opinion on the very nature of rights and specifically the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate, distinct things).

Montecresto said:
Frankly, I fail to understand the need for either or.
Click to expand...

Well, the individual right model protects the rights of the citizen by rendering impotent the powers of government and the collective right model conjures powers into being that were never conferred to government for the singular purpose of violating / extinguishing the rights of the citizen.

Montecresto said:
Defense, whether police, National Guard or Military is both rational and practical. And defense of ones self is also rational and practical, and, even natural. And nothing or no one should be able to deny that to
Click to expand...

The collective right model denies what you declare rational and practical and natural. The collective right model holds that no citizen has any right to possess and use any arms (even for self defense) outside of a government authorized and organized militia.

The fundamental flaw the collective right theory is that the right to arms doesn't exist because of what the 2nd Amendment says, (or any particular interpretation of it), it exists because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say . . .

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers and the Government of the United States can only exercise those delegated powers. Government's power and authority is defined and limited by the Constitution and all powers not granted to government by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

Rights, especially when enumerated like in our Bill of Rights, are "exceptions of powers never granted" which means that all the 2nd Amendment does is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.
 
Deuce said:
On the other hand, does "shall not be infringed" mean you get to privately purchase nuclear warheads with no background check?
Click to expand...



Please, let's not be ridiculous. We've gone through this before.


Under Strict Constitutional Scrutiny, it is easily argued that restricting nukes (and other WMD) is utterly necessary to maintaining the existence and functionality of society. Even if peaceably kept, WMD are inherently dangerous if improperly handled or stored, and incapable of anything but indiscriminate slaughter... therefore use in self-defense or other lawful purposes is all but impossible.

It is hard enough to argue any legitimate purpose in a State owning WMD, let alone an individual. Let's keep the discussion somewhat within the realm of reason.
 
Willie Orwontee said:
Only one has support in the philosophical foundation and the historical and legal record of this nation. The other is of 20th century origin in the federal courts, derived from a perverse legal trick to keep Blacks disarmed in the South. It went like this, . . . Since Blacks were forbidden to serve in the militia, state constitution's right to arms provisions were interpreted by discriminatory state courts to only protect the arms of militia members -- thus laws disarming Blacks were constitutional regardless of Black's citizenship status.



And that is a conclusion at odds with foundational constitutional principles (primarily conferred powers and retained rights) and longstanding Supreme Court opinion on the very nature of rights and specifically the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate, distinct things).



Well, the individual right model protects the rights of the citizen by rendering impotent the powers of government and the collective right model conjures powers into being that were never conferred to government for the singular purpose of violating / extinguishing the rights of the citizen.



The collective right model denies what you declare rational and practical and natural. The collective right model holds that no citizen has any right to possess and use any arms (even for self defense) outside of a government authorized and organized militia.

The fundamental flaw the collective right theory is that the right to arms doesn't exist because of what the 2nd Amendment says, (or any particular interpretation of it), it exists because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say . . .

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers and the Government of the United States can only exercise those delegated powers. Government's power and authority is defined and limited by the Constitution and all powers not granted to government by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

Rights, especially when enumerated like in our Bill of Rights, are "exceptions of powers never granted" which means that all the 2nd Amendment does is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you're having difficulty with this. We have a natural individual right of self defense and we have a natural and practical right of collective defense. You and your gun may protect you from a middle of the night intruder, but collectively we need police and military practicing the collective right to bear arms for societal defense. This is really simple, and both positions are solid.
 
Montecresto said:
Where did I say that it would? I asked Turtle Dude the question, he seems very knowledgeable on guns.
Click to expand...

OK, it was a presumption. Are you saying you knew it would not depressurize the cabin, since you commented on piercing the fuselage?
 
Lursa said:
OK, it was a presumption. Are you saying you knew it would not depressurize the cabin, since you commented on piercing the fuselage?
Click to expand...

No, I simply asked TD what would happen. He gave a link that said if it struck a window, it would depressurizes the plane in seconds.
 
Montecresto said:
No, I simply asked TD what would happen. He gave a link that said if it struck a window, it would depressurizes the plane in seconds.
Click to expand...

if the entire window were to evaporate
 
countryboy said:
Sorry, but the leftist agenda seeks to control every facet of our lives. The modern liberal / progressive cannot divorce themselves from those policies, which they support.

I understand the point you are trying to make. I am generally not a fan of blanket statements either, but I do not see any liberals standing up for the cause of liberty and freedom these days. I can no longer give any of them the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...


Um...there's a few of us in this thread....backing the 2A unreservedly.
 
TurtleDude said:
if the entire window were to evaporate
Click to expand...

I don't know about "evaporate", but unless the Marshall is shooting a 22 caliber pistol, the window is likely to be gone, along with the cabins pressure.
 
Montecresto said:
No, I simply asked TD what would happen. He gave a link that said if it struck a window, it would depressurizes the plane in seconds.
Click to expand...

Well ok but you originally stated 'fuselage.' :mrgreen:
 
Montecresto said:
I don't know about "evaporate", but unless the Marshall is shooting a 22 caliber pistol, the window is likely to be gone, along with the cabins pressure.
Click to expand...

really? what do you think airplane windows are made out of>
 
TurtleDude said:
really? what do you think airplane windows are made out of>
Click to expand...

From your link TD.

If the bullet blows out a window, that's a problem. A big one. When the window blows, the plane will depressurize over the course of several seconds.
 
montecresto said:
from your link td.

If the bullet blows out a window, that's a problem. A big one. When the window blows, the plane will depressurize over the course of several seconds.
Click to expand...

if if if
 
Montecresto said:
From your link TD.

If the bullet blows out a window, that's a problem. A big one. When the window blows, the plane will depressurize over the course of several seconds.
Click to expand...
Air Marshals use a fragmenting bullet. You could fire right at the window and the window will hold.
 
Montecresto said:
Since it's not the kind of thing I want in my google search history, screw it. But I wouldn't want to be on the plane when it was tested.
Click to expand...

LOL, that NSA is everywhere.

Good thing I was a fed!
 
Jerry said:
What about it?

Maybe we should start putting material in our posts so that it appears in your IP's web history.
Click to expand...

If terrorists beat the security apparatus, or bribed an airline employee as TD suggested, would they be firing fragmenting bullets?
 
Jerry said:
On 9/11 they didn't.
Click to expand...

Did they even use firearms then? Anyway, if terrorists ever did get guns on a plane, would they be thinking of cabin pressure and fragmenting bullets?
 
Montecresto said:
Did they even use firearms then? Anyway, if terrorists ever did get guns on a plane, would they be thinking of cabin pressure and fragmenting bullets?
Click to expand...
Wait, are we still talking about the second amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom