• 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:
the irony in this claim is hilarious. your posts constantly avoid answering straight questions

why does Reagan matter at all

was he a constitutional scholar-NO

was he an expert on firearms-NO

was he a military expert-NO

he doesn't matter
Click to expand...

WoW!!!! :shock: How quick the worm turns. Once upon a time the far right idolized Reagan and considered him as a bosom buddy. Now he was a senile old man who does not matter. Amazing!!!!!!! :roll::shock:
 
TurtleDude said:
as long as there are people who want to strip us of our rights for dishonest or nefarious reasons, we need to be well armed
Click to expand...

So you can kill them over a dispute about public policy.
 
Lursa said:
Men dont need muscle cars either. People dont 'need' 4-wheelers, they can get around perfectly find with a 4WD SUV.

Who needs a $6000 Fendi bag? Did I miss where anyone needs personal 4 or 6 seater airplanes?

In America, it's called 'free will' and 'personal liberty.' (And before you try it, lots of these things, named and unnamed, can kill if used improperly).
Click to expand...

I would urge you to find out where Ronald Reagan is buried - I believe it is in California - visit there and place your concerns on his grave and wait for a response.
 
haymarket said:
I would urge you to find out where Ronald Reagan is buried - I believe it is in California - visit there and place your concerns on his grave and wait for a response.
Click to expand...

Since I showed how invalid your post was, and you could not uphold it further, this is the kind of response I expect. Empty.
 
haymarket said:
Actually nuclear weapons are indeed arms and Pirate corrected you on this with lots of evidence when this came up before.
Click to expand...
Nuclear weapons are arms but they are not protected by the 2nd because they are not militia weapons, they are not 'in common use that the time' and they're 'dangerous and unusual'.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ""dangerous and unusual weapons"."

~snip~

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Click to expand...
In order to be a protected, a weapon must be both 1."in common use at the time", and may not be 2. "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership.
So, let's go down the list:

  • Non-lethal weapons (ie; paint-ball guns, tazers): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Ranged weapons (ie; bow, crossbow, sling-shot): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Melee weapons (knives, axes, saps, baton): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle/shotgun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Assault-rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Machine-gun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear/radiological weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Lethal Biological/Chemical weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes
  • Non-Lethal Chemical weapons (ie; tear-gas, pepper-spray): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

Accessories are not 'arms' but if we are to judge accessories by the same rule, then...

  • Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Telescopic/folding but-stock: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Flash Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Sound Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.


Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, and anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

 
Boo Radley said:
Does it, or is that merely an exaggeration?
Click to expand...

Oh please, when you guys talk compromise with the conservatives, it just means them giving in.
 
Lursa said:
Since I showed how invalid your post was, and you could not uphold it further, this is the kind of response I expect. Empty.
Click to expand...

You argued with President Reagan.
 
Jerry said:
Nuclear weapons are arms but they are not protected by the 2nd because they are not militia weapons, they are not 'in common use that the time' and they're 'dangerous and unusual'.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment has none of those restrictions you mentioned.
 
TurtleDude said:
as long as there are people who want to strip us of our rights for dishonest or nefarious reasons, we need to be well armed
Click to expand...

That doesn't have to become an eventuality you know. And if it ever did, either side could easily be that belligerent, though I suspect you believe it could only come from one. It requires diligence, involvement, skin in the game essentially, but it's only a Republic if you can keep it. And whether you keep it or loose it is decided way before the shooting begins. No room for the complacent or disinterested.
 
Jerry said:
Sure but the original statement you disagreed with was having US Air Marshals armed. US Air Marshals will be using fragmenting bullets.
Click to expand...

Actually, my original statement was no guns on board planes, to include air Marshall's. If they did get into a gun fight, hijackers, or "terrorists" wouldn't be using "safe" bullets. It's actually possible to keep guns off of airplanes. It does require competent people going about it. Not like the madam protecting the president, lol.
 
Montecresto said:
Actually, my original statement was no guns on board planes, to include air Marshall's. If they did get into a gun fight, hijackers, or "terrorists" wouldn't be using "safe" bullets. It's actually possible to keep guns off of airplanes. It does require competent people going about it. Not like the madam protecting the president, lol.
Click to expand...
Terrorists don't need guns to effect a hyjacking.

Air Marshals need guns if the aircraft is hyjacked even if the terrorists do not have any guns.

It's not about guns to repel guns, it's not about a gun'fight, it's about retaining control of the aircraft.

Guns are simply the most effective way to apply force.
 
haymarket said:
You argued with President Reagan.
Click to expand...

No...is this your 'normal' way of interpreting people on the Internet disputing quotes you post?

My argument was with the point you ineffectually attempted to make.
 
Jerry said:
Yes it does. The prefatory clause. The 2A specifically regards militia weapons.
Click to expand...

You have not been keeping up with Heller. The first half of the amendment is now worth less than the utilitarian value of a five pound bag of common garden manure.
 
Lursa said:
No...is this your 'normal' way of interpreting people on the Internet disputing quotes you post?

My argument was with the point you ineffectually attempted to make.
Click to expand...

You had no real argument. If you think you do, just state it clearly and I will be happy to speak to it.
 
countryboy said:
It mentions nothing of "militia weapons".
Click to expand...
Oh putting words in quotes to change their meaning now? Nice. Dishonest of you, but nice.

"A well regulated militia...", that means were talking about militia arms, not naval arms, not air-force arms, but a militia, which is infantry and to a lesser degree field artillery.
 
earthworm said:
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 .
Click to expand...


there is no vagueness. It wasn't until Democraps in the 1930s wanted to pander to people by pretending to "do something" about bootleggers did anyone start pretending that the 2nd A was ambiguous
 
Jerry said:
Oh putting words in quotes to change their meaning now? Nice. Dishonest of you, but nice.

"A well regulated militia...", that means were talking about militia arms, not naval arms, not air-force arms, but a militia, which is infantry and to a lesser degree field artillery.
Click to expand...

apparently "THAT MEANS" as used by you actually means ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO MEAN even though the Amendment does not say so.
 
haymarket said:
WoW!!!! :shock: How quick the worm turns. Once upon a time the far right idolized Reagan and considered him as a bosom buddy. Now he was a senile old man who does not matter. Amazing!!!!!!! :roll::shock:
Click to expand...

and that is different than far lefties who bashed everything he did in office?

where did I ever praise Reagan though making Scalia a Justice was a good move

tell us Haymarket, why does Reagan's out of office psychobabble matter at all?
 
haymarket said:
So you can kill them over a dispute about public policy.
Click to expand...

No, we have arms to kill people who would take away our rights by force

though if a war happens, I see collaborators and toadies of those in power as being seen as combatants as well
 
Jerry said:
Yes it does. The prefatory clause. The 2A specifically regards militia weapons.
Click to expand...

Interesting . For 220 years all we had was a Second Amendment. Now we seem to have an Amendment with a fancy PREFATORY clause which does not mean as much as the substance which normally clings to toilet tissue and an OPERANT clause which apparently is the be all and end all of the Amendment.

And when did this sudden transformation happen?
 
haymarket said:
Interesting . For 220 years all we had was a Second Amendment. Now we seem to have an Amendment with a fancy PREFATORY clause which does not mean as much as the substance which normally clings to toilet tissue and an OPERANT clause which apparently is the be all and end all of the Amendment.


And when did this sudden transformation happen?
Click to expand...
Don't get mad at me just because you don't know what you're talking about.

haymarket said:
Your computer has a voice level on it for the posts??????? WOW that is advanced!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
This sort of thing has been around since the 80s. : Text-to-Speech Software for Windows - Free downloads and reviews - CNET Download.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom