• 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 .
Good point. the term GUN GRABBER as used here and by others seems to mean the same thing it does when a third grader says "nananananana" as a taunt on the playground. And it has the same level of intellectual sophistication.

And it's not true. It's a demonization and why. Obama has been great for gun rights advocates, he's been great for firearms and ammunition sales, great for those that teach CHL classes, great for the firing ranges, in fact the only ones with a legitimate complaint are his one time supporters that are pissed because he's done nothing to advance firearm restrictions and regulations!

Bush signs bill geared to toughen screening of gun buyers
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-guns9dec09-story.html

The Brady Campaign is a gun control group formed by former Regan press secretary James Brady. The Brady Group grades each president with a letter grade from A to F. A is very strict on gun control and F is extremely lenient on gun control. President Obama has received an F in every category graded by the Brady Group.

Read more: http://www.disclose.tv/forum/obama-the-most-pro-gun-president-t81187.html#ixzz3FpwQIuex
 
Last edited:
I can find absolutely no record of the Supreme Court dividing the one sentence of the Second Amendment into any PREFATORY clause and OPERANT clause before Heller. One cannot produce something which was never done.

And that is the point.


the Supreme court had made references to the right being individual. that is the point
 
And it's not true. It's a demonization and why. Obama has been great for gun rights advocates, he's been great for firearms and ammunition sales, great for those that teach CHL classes, great for the firing ranges, in fact the only ones with a legitimate complaint are his one time supporters that are pissed because he's done nothing to advance firearm restrictions and regulations!

Bush signs bill geared to toughen screening of gun buyers
Bush signs bill geared to toughen screening of gun buyers - LA Times

The Brady Campaign is a gun control group formed by former Regan press secretary James Brady. The Brady Group grades each president with a letter grade from A to F. A is very strict on gun control and F is extremely lenient on gun control. President Obama has received an F in every category graded by the Brady Group.

Read more: Obama the most Pro-Gun President : Politics & NWO

The Brady organization existed long before Reagan and only changed its name in order to use the story of James Brady to advance its nefarious ends. That group is well known for its dishonesty.
 
The Brady organization existed long before Reagan and only changed its name in order to use the story of James Brady to advance its nefarious ends. That group is well known for its dishonesty.

Ha, now it's Reagan and Brady are bad, don't forget George Bush, better add him in, he signed a bill that would toughen screenings on those exercising their second amendment right. And he was opposed to repealing Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban.
 
the Supreme court had made references to the right being individual. that is the point

No - that is not the point. I stated quite clearly - and some here on your side took objection to it - that Scalia invented new rules and new standards and a new version of the Second Amendment that we did not have in the past 220 years. One such example is his nonsense about a PREFATORY clause which he apparently views as having less than the value of a piece of toilet tissue - and the OPERANT clause which he seems to see as all important. I stated that this was an invention of Scalia in Heller and possibly came from the rightist build-up to it in their 25 year cause celebre which resulted in Heller.

I provided evidence which shows this despite the urgings of Jerry that I read Heller - which I did and found the language which shows I am correct.

And THAT my friend was MY point.
 
Ha, now it's Reagan and Brady are bad, don't forget George Bush, better add him in, he signed a bill that would toughen screenings on those exercising their second amendment right. And he was opposed to repealing Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban.

But aren't all three of those guys evil partisan Democrats out to destroy guns and the political base that supports the gun lobby? :roll:
 
But aren't all three of those guys evil partisan Democrats out to destroy guns and the political base that supports the gun lobby? :roll:

Well, they're not partisan democrats to be sure, but they do/did all have more restrictive policies then Obama (as I've shown above) and yet the partisan right here calls Obama the "gun grabber"!

And, forgot to mention, he signed a bill allowing Amtrak passengers to store handguns in their checked baggage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/28/obama-gun-control-_n_5404854.html

That big gun grabber Obama!!!!
 
Last edited:
Well, they're not partisan democrats to be sure, but they do/did all have more restrictive policies then Obama (as I've shown above) and yet the partisan right here calls Obama the "gun grabber"!

And, forgot to mention, he signed a bill allowing Amtrak passengers to store handguns in their checked baggage.

If Obama Is Actually Coming For Your Guns, He's Really Terrible At It

That big gun grabber Obama!!!!

But we have been told repeatedly and often that it is the DEMOCRATS who are the gun grabbers? :doh Are you saying the actual record does NOT support such a politically motivated charge? :shock: WOW!!!!!!!! Who would have thunk it!!!! :roll:
 
the Supreme court had made references to the right being individual. that is the point

the point is that Scalia was led by ideology and NOT by history or the Constitution or anything else. Let me quote from Scalia's majority decision in Heller

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).


I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:

The term “bear arms” is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. To “bear arms against” means “to be engaged in hostilities with.” The word “arms” itself has an overwhelmingly military meaning, referring to weapons of offense or armor of defense. In every instance we have found where the term “bear arms” (or “bearing arms” or “bear arms against”) is employed, without any additional modifying language attached, the term unquestionably is used in its idiomatic military sense. It is only where additional language is tacked on, either to bend the idiom by specifying a particular type of fighting or to break the idiom by adding incompatible language, that the meaning of “bear arms” deviates. In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.

So please tell us how Scalia came to the opposite decision from the source he lists as an important one in helping to formulate his understanding and interpretation of the Amendment?
 
No - it clears up nothing. Reagans statement was very clear and applies to the Second Amendment. It is an entirely valid statement.

I guess we'll just go with this then, since you willfully choose to ignore it, as you didnt ask for clarification (on how it doesnt apply to the 2A anymore than the other things I mentioned.).

That's not true...you just chose to ignore it or didnt understand it.

The comment of RR's can be applied to many things...and when such is done....it's shown to not be a valid presumption.

Does that help clear it up?
 
I guess we'll just go with this then, since you willfully choose to ignore it, as you didnt ask for clarification (on how it doesnt apply to the 2A anymore than the other things I mentioned.).

I did read that when you originally posted it. So what? Reagan said what he said about guns and the issue and it is entirely a valid statement. I simply do not get what you think your point is.

I am always mystified how when you tell people that - instead of trying to go about it a different way so that they may be understood - they simply repeat the same thing which you already told them is NOT getting their message across.
 
I did read that when you originally posted it. So what? Reagan said what he said about guns and the issue and it is entirely a valid statement. I simply do not get what you think your point is.

I am always mystified how when you tell people that - instead of trying to go about it a different way so that they may be understood - they simply repeat the same thing which you already told them is NOT getting their message across.

It's not valid because of the examples I gave. You are not arguing the content of my post...IMO you cant and have your original post stand...you are attempting to argue that you just dont like that I wont accept your avoidance.
 
It's not valid because of the examples I gave. You are not arguing the content of my post...IMO you cant and have your original post stand...you are attempting to argue that you just dont like that I wont accept your avoidance.

What specific content of your post? Are you talking about this from 479?

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).

which you appeared to be replying to my post that reprodced to it as a lead in .... as follows

Originally Posted by haymarket
Both apply. There is a ton of honest and decent people in this nation who support people having guns for self defense and sport but also support reasonable laws controlling firearms. They are indeed honest and decent people.

Ronald Reagan summed such folks up perfectly.


“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

Is that the content you are talking about?
 
Last edited:
What specific content of your post? Are you talking about this from 479?



which you appeared to be replying to my post that reprodced to it as a lead in .... as follows


Is that the content you are talking about?

Yes. Now, care to explain why my response was invalid?
 
Yes. Now, care to explain why my response was invalid?

Sure thing. I will be happy to clear that up.

Here was my post


Originally Posted by haymarket
Both apply. There is a ton of honest and decent people in this nation who support people having guns for self defense and sport but also support reasonable laws controlling firearms. They are indeed honest and decent people.

Ronald Reagan summed such folks up perfectly.


“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.

and your response which followed

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).

I have no idea what your first four sentences and then the conclusion you made about them has to do with my post as you keep talklng about NEED and I said nothing about NEED. The content of your post is completely disconnected from the content of my post which you produced as the lead in to yours. I see no connection at all.
 
Last edited:
Sure thing. I will be happy to clear that up.

Here was my post




and your response which followed



I have no idea what your first four sentences and then the conclusion you made about them has to do with my post as you keep talklng about NEED and I said nothing about NEED. The content of your post is completely disconnected from the content of my post which you produced as the lead in to yours. I see no connection at all.

That's the trouble with the gun crowd: when they get backed into a corner through their own illogic, they resort to nonsense as though it's a valid argument. It's just another trick and a glaring examolke of defeat.
 
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

It does not need to be changed, as the guys who wrote it were very much in command of the English language, and were quite explicit--the right of the citizen to be armed shall not be infringed.

And really, who gets to say just who shall be armed and who shall not? Do we get to vote on that?

So I think it needs to stay right where it is--the armed citizen.
 
That's the trouble with the gun crowd: when they get backed into a corner through their own illogic, they resort to nonsense as though it's a valid argument. It's just another trick and a glaring examolke of defeat.

Perhaps it was a legitimate misunderstanding? I have tried to clear up my end of it with my post. Sometimes we have things in our minds which do not quite get to our fingers when typing out on the keyboard. Maybe this was one of those times for both ends of the discussion.

But it should be clear now.
 
I have no idea what your first four sentences and then the conclusion you made about them has to do with my post as you keep talklng about NEED and I said nothing about NEED. The content of your post is completely disconnected from the content of my post which you produced as the lead in to yours. I see no connection at all.

You posted a quote that said people dont need ARs. Did I imagine that? And it was about something covered in the 2A...a Constitutional Right.

I posted a bunch of things that people dont need, yet are allowed to have (and arent even covered by a Constitutional Right) yet can be dangerous or 'not necessary,' yet in America, personal liberty and free will are paramount and not just restricted because 'we dont need them.'

RR's quote said the same...and while it may be true people dont 'need' ARs (and some here would contest that) that has absolutely no bearing on if they 'want' them or not and should be able to own them.
 
You posted a quote that said people dont need ARs. Did I imagine that?

I do not remember that. Could you please post it so I can examine it and give you a proper response?

But I made it very clear to you that you were replying to my post that you reproduced in 479 and I said NOTHING about NEED in that post you replied to. If you want to take issue with Reagan - go ahead and do it. His views are his views and I suspect lots and lots and lots of the American people echo that statement. They support hunting and guns for self and home and business defense but the draw the line at some weapons that they simply do not want as part of our society.

Society does this all the time as you are aware with such things as zoning laws and laws covering products and what they can do and what they cannot do. This is nothing new or radical.

You may feel you NEED to put three more stories on your house but the zoning laws prohibit it. You can talk all you want about FREEDOM and LIBERTY and CHOICE and FREE WILL but your need does not trump the laws of your community made by the duly elected representatives of your community.
 
Last edited:
You posted a quote that said people dont need ARs. About something covered in the 2A...a Constitutional Right.

I posted a bunch of things that people dont need, yet are allowed to have (and arent even covered by a Constitutional Right) yet can be dangerous or 'not necessary,' yet in America, personal liberty and free will are paramount and not just restricted because 'we dont need them.'

RR's quote said the same...and while it may be true people dont need ARs (and some here would contest that) that has absolutely no bearing on if they 'want' them or not.

An AR should be perhaps the most protected weapon for at least 2 reasons:

1. It represents THE militia weapon. One cannot maintain a militia without a modern rifle.

2. It represents the vast majority of rifle knowledge in this country. Banning the AR would be removing the only rifle 90% of people know (through military or police service).

Banning the AR strikes directly at the 2nd and the collective rifle proficiency of the country.
 
I do not remember that. Could you please post it so I can examine it and give you a proper response?

But I made it very clear to you that you were replying to my post that you reproduced in 479 and I said NOTHING about NEED in that post you replied to.

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.


Thus implying that we dont 'need' it for sport and explicitly saying it for self-defense.

And beyond what I wrote, it is indeed needed to fulfill the primary goal of the 2A....for use against govt tyranny, as Ecofarm also pointed out. It doesnt matter if it's 'needed' for those other things....that isnt the purpose of the 2A to begin with.
 
An AR should be perhaps the most protected weapon for at least 2 reasons:

1. It represents THE militia weapon. One cannot maintain a militia without a modern rifle.

2. It represents the vast majority of rifle knowledge in this country. Banning the AR would be removing the only rifle 90% of people know (through military or police service).

Banning the AR strikes directly at the 2nd and the collective rifle proficiency of the country.

Since we do NOT have a militia any longer and have not had one for a very long time now and it has been replaced by professional standing armies - your concerns are irrelevant.
 
“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.


Thus implying that we dont 'need' it for sport and explicitly saying it for self-defense.

And beyond what I wrote, it is indeed needed to fulfill the primary goal of the 2A....for use against govt tyranny, as Ecofarm also pointed out. It doesnt matter if it's 'needed' for those other things....that isnt the purpose of the 2A to begin with.

Like I said - you want to argue with Reagan - go for it.

The Second Amendment says nothing about government tyranny. It does say a whole lot about militia service. And that is the purpose of it.
 
Like I said - you want to argue with Reagan - go for it.

The Second Amendment says nothing about government tyranny. It does say a whole lot about militia service. And that is the purpose of it.

LOL

OK, you admit your post and quote meant nothing relevant.

What a waste of typing.
 
Back
Top Bottom