• 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 .
TurtleDude said:
Yes, he claimed that but no constitutional scholar supports that and Goshin also explained why using Nukes is a silly argument. The second amendment dealt with individual arms capable of being borne by individuals. SO grasping for support is perhaps to be expected but its without merit
Click to expand...

So then, using your own logic, if an individual is indeed capable of bearing a nuclear weapon, then you concede you are wrong?
 
haymarket said:
So then, using your own logic, if an individual is indeed capable of bearing a nuclear weapon, then you concede you are wrong?
Click to expand...

of course not because its not an individual weapon and Goshin has explained why Congress can properly ban such things. And its a dishonest argument that has no relevance to this discussion. when individual police start using nukes, or each soldier is issued one, perhaps then an honest discussion of the 2A would require encompassing such weapons

right now we are dealing with the Democrat party's schemes to prevent citizens from owning the same weapons civilian police agencies use and with banning the standard infantry rifle of our armed forces which does not have any different characteristics of weapons that civilians in the USA have owned and used for decades.
 
haymarket said:
Please do present your medical evidence of this claim of fact.
Click to expand...

One of your party's most esteemed leaders said of Reagan, " FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD FIRST"

and Reagan had no training in constitutional law nor weapons. SO his opinion means nothing to me
 
TurtleDude said:
of course not because its not an individual weapon and Goshin has explained why Congress can properly ban such things. And its a dishonest argument that has no relevance to this discussion. when individual police start using nukes, or each soldier is issued one, perhaps then an honest discussion of the 2A would require encompassing such weapons
Click to expand...

Again, so if an individual can carry a nuclear weapon - BEAR IT - then you are wrong. So that is your standard.
 
TurtleDude said:
One of your party's most esteemed leaders said of Reagan, " FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD FIRST"

and Reagan had no training in constitutional law nor weapons. SO his opinion means nothing to me
Click to expand...

Stop trying to deflect and avoid answering the challenge made to you to prove your charge that Reagan was senile when he made the statement. Please do present your medical evidence of this claim of fact.
 
Crovax said:
that would make it more clear but by no means would it make it clear. Arms is a vague term and we have essentially limited it to small firearms, we have restricted who can buy them, where they can be used. Without defining arms and what constitutes infringement it will be just as messy as it is now. This is the problem with the "read the constitution" arguments arms can mean small arms as we have defined it or it could be defined most weapons up to and including nuclear weapons and there are cogent arguments to be made for both sides.
Click to expand...

That I would completely agree with. When referring to the arms of the day, muskets are typically referenced and it's usually declared that later inventions, tanks, bazookas, machine guns, missiles and the like would not be included. Although, cannons did exist at the time.
 
haymarket said:
Stop trying to deflect and avoid answering the challenge made to you to prove your charge that Reagan was senile when he made the statement. Please do present your medical evidence of this claim of fact.
Click to expand...

What a wonderful opportunity to dismiss the uncomfortable. What was that, 1989, and he left the White House in 1988! Lol, what else can be dismissed owing to Ronald Reagan's senility? His entire second term. I guess those on the left should start using the same argument for Biden when having to respond to his regular gaffs!
 
Montecresto said:
That I would completely agree with. When referring to the arms of the day, muskets are typically referenced and it's usually declared that later inventions, tanks, bazookas, machine guns, missiles and the like would not be included. Although, cannons did exist at the time.
Click to expand...

It pretty easy to compare muskets to the guns we have today because the work in much the same way, but what happens if we advance beyond firearms to directed energy weapons does the 2nd amendment cover that?
 
haymarket said:
Again, so if an individual can carry a nuclear weapon - BEAR IT - then you are wrong. So that is your standard.
Click to expand...

And indeed one can, in a briefcase.
 
Crovax said:
It pretty easy to compare muskets to the guns we have today because the work in much the same way, but what happens if we advance beyond firearms to directed energy weapons does the 2nd amendment cover that?
Click to expand...

Well? See, I don't know, nor does anybody else, though there are no shortages of opinions, yours and mine included. I suppose to the 65% of Americans who believe the second amendment is about citizen protection from a tyrannical government, the answer would be basically yes! whatever the government has.
 
TurtleDude said:
One of your party's most esteemed leaders said of Reagan, " FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD FIRST"

and Reagan had no training in constitutional law nor weapons. SO his opinion means nothing to me
Click to expand...

Beautiful, talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face!!
 
countryboy said:
Suitcase nukes are a myth.
Click to expand...

Dude, I know your new here and exited to jump in feet first, but you've been pinging me since yesterday afternoon! Take a chill pill.

A suitcase nuke (also suitcase bomb, backpack nuke, mini-nuke, and pocket nuke) is a tactical nuclear weapon which uses, or is portable enough that it could use, a suitcase as its delivery method. Thus far, only the United States and the Soviet Union/Russian Federation are known to have possessed nuclear weapons programs developed and funded well enough to manufacture miniaturized nuclear weapons.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
 
Montecresto said:
Well? See, I don't know, nor does anybody else, though there are no shortages of opinions, yours and mine included. I suppose to the 65% of Americans who believe the second amendment is about citizen protection from a tyrannical government, the answer would be basically yes! whatever the government has.
Click to expand...

Did you ever get around to reading that article I linked you to? The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not limited to defense against a tyrannical government. It is unconditional. A directed energy weapon would be covered.
 
TurtleDude said:
the federal government does not have the proper power-even under the idiotic contorted commerce clause to demand background checks of sales that are limited to INTRA-State

what the Second Should say is as follows

The federal government has no proper power to regulate small arms sales, possession or use in the United States of America except on federal facilities.
Click to expand...
One .. If the states refuse to act in a responsible manner, then the feds MUST jump in .
Two .. Obviously, the Second Amendment need to be properly rewritten , with all the vagueness... causing controversy .
 
Experts close the lid on 'suitcase nukes' - USATODAY.com
Montecresto said:
Dude, I know your new here and exited to jump in feet first, but you've been pinging me since yesterday afternoon! Take a chill pill.

A suitcase nuke (also suitcase bomb, backpack nuke, mini-nuke, and pocket nuke) is a tactical nuclear weapon which uses, or is portable enough that it could use, a suitcase as its delivery method. Thus far, only the United States and the Soviet Union/Russian Federation are known to have possessed nuclear weapons programs developed and funded well enough to manufacture miniaturized nuclear weapons.

Suitcase nuke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Dude, I am responding to many posters. You ain't special. Calm.

If I annoy you that much, ignore me. ;)

My apparently annoying nature notwithstanding, suitcase nukes are still a myth. This is old news.
 
Montecresto said:
I suppose to the 65% of Americans who believe the second amendment is about citizen protection from a tyrannical government, the answer would be basically yes!
Click to expand...

Why should anyone not believe that one was one of the purposes for the Second Amendment? Quite a lot of evidence makes clear that it was, and I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court cited it.
 
matchlight said:
Why should anyone not believe that one was one of the purposes for the Second Amendment? Quite a lot of evidence makes clear that it was, and I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court cited it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
The 2nd Amendment only needs to be amended with the following sentence, "Gun-haters shall eat **** and die." :2razz:
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm, not sure that's true. They were practical men. The revised their first effort to strengthen federal power, not limit it more. They too, had they lived two hundred years, have likely revised many of their thoughts as they learned more. It's unlikely they would have stayed static.
 
countryboy said:
Experts close the lid on 'suitcase nukes' - USATODAY.com[/ur

Dude, I am responding to many posters. You ain't special. Calm.

If I annoy you that much, ignore me. ;)

My apparently annoying nature notwithstanding, suitcase nukes are still a myth. This is old news.
Click to expand...


The U.S. always had the lead in nuclear weapons design, and the smallest portable one it ever developed was fitted into a pack one soldier could carry. These "special atomic demolition munitions" were meant to let very small groups of men infiltrate into enemy territory and demolish important targets like airfields, dams, and power stations.

The bomb itself was the same one used in a small tactical rocket called the "Davy Crockett." It was just under a foot in diameter and about sixteen inches long, and it could be set to yield as little as the equivalent of ten tons of TNT, or as much as one thousand. It weighed just over fifty pounds--so the complete demolition device, with pack, timer, etc. must have weighed somewhat more. Pretty small, but not quite like the briefcase-sized things I've seen them portrayed as in movies.
 
matchlight said:
The U.S. always had the lead in nuclear weapons design, and the smallest portable one it ever developed was fitted into a pack one soldier could carry. These "special atomic demolition munitions" were meant to let very small groups of men infiltrate into enemy territory and demolish important targets like airfields, dams, and power stations.

The bomb itself was the same one used in a small tactical rocket called the "Davy Crockett." It was just under a foot in diameter and about sixteen inches long, and it could be set to yield as little as the equivalent of ten tons of TNT, or as much as one thousand. It weighed just over fifty pounds--so the complete demolition device, with pack, timer, etc. must have weighed somewhat more. Pretty small, but not quite like the briefcase-sized things I've seen them portrayed as in movies.
Click to expand...
Not doubting your word, but do you know of a source for this info?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom