• 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!

Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Are ANY government regulations of the 2nd Amendment acceptable?

  • No. It's a Constitutional Right & no regulatioins are acceptable.

    Votes: 25 35.7%

  • Yes. Reasonable regulations are acceptable.

    Votes: 36 51.4%

  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry full auto weapons.

    Votes: 16 22.9%

  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry flame throwers.

    Votes: 7 10.0%

  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry tactical nukes.

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • gun restrictions are necessary to prevent unauthorized use by nuts.

    Votes: 12 17.1%
  • Total voters
    70
Devil505 said:
Do we collectively (the government) have a right to regulate/control a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment Rights?
Click to expand...
We collectively ≠ the government.

That is precisely why we have a Second Amendment to begin with.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not the first to say it, but to add my voice to it --

The weaponry carried by a typical infantryman should be unrestricted.
Click to expand...

Why would any citizen need military style weapons of war?
What possible good can come from full auto weapons being readily available to nuts?

I was a DEA Agent & we very rarely took anything in the field other than pump action shotguns. (that was a while ago & admittedly things have gotten more violent since then)
BUT
Even police are typically not faced with numbers of murderous criminals that need to be killed, other than terrorists or N. Hollywood type criminal madmen or the Miami FBI shootings, which are thankfully very rare occurrences.

I see no societal benefit for military type weapons being easier to get by the average citizen.
Criminals will be able to get any weapon they want. The real danger to society are the Columbine type whack jobs who are suicidal anyway & just want to kill! Imagine how many more bodies would there have been if the Columbine killers had access to fully automatic weapons?!?:blastem:
 
Last edited:
Rights come with responsibilities, if you cannot be responsible you should have restrictions placed on you as an individual.
Blanket restrictions are another matter...
 
Why? For all the purposes for which the 2A was framed, of course.
 
Ikari said:
I think the AA-12 should be completely unrestricted too...because I would really really like one.
Click to expand...

I agree.

If not currently the case, I think it likely that the AA-12 will soon become a standard infantry weapon. I hope. It would seemingly be very usefull to our soldiers.

Thus, it should be unrestricted.
 
UtahBill said:
Rights come with responsibilities, if you cannot be responsible you should have restrictions placed on you as an individual.
Blanket restrictions are another matter...
Click to expand...

That was mighty white of you Utah!

:allhail

Seriously well put.
 
Devil505 said:
Why would any citizen need military style weapons of war?
Click to expand...

In case the government decides to turn on the people.

What possible good can come from full auto weapons being readily available to nuts?
Click to expand...

Nuts will get their hands on what ever they can regardless of what the laws.Legalizing or making full autos easier to get will ensure that more law abiding citizens than criminals will get their hands on those weapons.

Even police are typically not faced with numbers of murderous criminals that need to be killed, other than terrorists or N. Hollywood type criminal madmen or the Miami FBI shootings, which are thankfully very rare occurrences.
Click to expand...

Isn't that just proof that laws banning firearms will not stop determined criminals?

I see no societal benefit for military type weapons being easier to get by the average citizen.
Click to expand...

I see the benefit of the government being less likely to turn on the people and if they do turn on the people the people will have a fighting chance.
Criminals will be able to get any weapon they want. The real danger to society are the Columbine type whack jobs who are suicidal anyway & just want to kill! Imagine how many more bodies would there have been if the Columbine killers had access to fully automatic weapons?!?:blastem:
Click to expand...
They probably would have ran out of ammo a lot faster. Shooting in full auto makes you less accurate.
 
Harshaw said:
Why? For all the purposes for which the 2A was framed, of course.
Click to expand...

When the 2A was written, the most lethal firearms were muzzle loaders with very limited lethality for killing large groups of people. That has changed a bit!;)
 
Devil505 said:
When the 2A was written, the most lethal firearms were muzzle loaders with very limited lethality for killing large groups of people. That has changed a bit!;)
Click to expand...

The purposes have not.

Of course, when the 1A was written, there was no such thing as satellite broadcast and 24/7 "news" networks being able to instantly spread ideas, even "misinformation," to the whole nation at large.
 
Harshaw said:
The purposes have not.

Of course, when the 1A was written, there was no such thing as satellite broadcast and 24/7 "news" networks being able to instantly spread ideas, even "misinformation," to the whole nation at large.
Click to expand...

You & I will obviously not change eachother's minds on this so let's just agree to disagree.
 
Devil505 said:
Why would any citizen need military style weapons of war?
Click to expand...
To protect themselves if an invasion occurs...the "militia" bit in the 2nd, I think. And to ensure that our government is not overwhelmingly more powerful then their citizens, thus ensuring that not only do we have the right and duty to revolt, but that we are capable of it.

Devil505 said:
What possible good can come from full auto weapons being readily available to nuts?
Click to expand...
Nothing. Restrictions on some or all firearms for someone who is unquestionably dangerous even without them seems reasonable to me. The problem with that is defining "unquestionably dangerous" to prevent abuse of such restrictions by the government.

Devil505 said:
I was a DEA Agent & we very rarely took anything in the field other than pump action shotguns. (that was a while ago & admittedly things have gotten more violent since then)
BUT
Even police are typically not faced with numbers of murderous criminals that need to be killed, other than terrorists or N. Hollywood type criminal madmen or the Miami FBI shootings, which are thankfully very rare occurrences.
Click to expand...
Well...

A thought: If we restrict more dangerous weapons to those who can demonstrate that they are trained in their use and safety, then having citizens near such a situation with such weapons who could take out such persons even before the law enforcement agents got there would both reduce the likelihood of such persons deciding to do such and potentially reduce the level of damage they could do if they did decide to do such.

Devil505 said:
I see no societal benefit for military type weapons being easier to get by the average citizen.
Click to expand...
My previous responses would seem to be societal benefits, if viewed from one perspective.

Devil505 said:
Criminals will be able to get any weapon they want. The real dangers to society are the Columbine type whack jobs who are suicidal anyway & just want to kill! Imagine how many more bodies would there have been if the Columbine killers had access to fully automatic weapons?!? :blastem:
Click to expand...
Well, I see no reason that private and/or public places cannot restrict the firearms they allow onto their grounds. How hard is it to put security in place? And having metal detectors in place and security guards would discourage such persons as the "Columbine killers", I would think. Nothing can really stop someone who wants to do such from doing it. Criminals can get any weapon they want if they are willing to ignore laws...and since they are criminals, why not?
 
The Mark said:
To protect themselves if an invasion occurs...the "militia" bit in the 2nd, I think. And to ensure that our government is not overwhelmingly more powerful then their citizens, thus ensuring that not only do we have the right and duty to revolt, but that we are capable of it.
Click to expand...
So citizens should own nukes, aircraft carriers & tanks to even the playing field to fight our government's military?
.


The Mark said:
Well...

A thought: If we restrict more dangerous weapons to those who can demonstrate that they are trained in their use and safety, then having citizens near such a situation with such weapons who could take out such persons even before the law enforcement agents got there would both reduce the likelihood of such persons deciding to do such and potentially reduce the level of damage they could do if they did decide to do such.
Click to expand...
So we have war zones in every city in the country?






The Mark said:
Well, I see no reason that private and/or public places cannot restrict the firearms they allow onto their grounds. How hard is it to put security in place? And having metal detectors in place and security guards would discourage such persons as the "Columbine killers", I would think. Nothing can really stop someone who wants to do such from doing it. Criminals can get any weapon they want if they are willing to ignore laws...and since they are criminals, why not?
Click to expand...
How long do you think it would have taken Dillon & Clybolt (?) to kill any armed guards at Columbine?
Should we post what would amount to private army units at every public school, shopping center, etc throughout the country?
 
Devil505 said:
So citizens should own nukes, aircraft carriers & tanks to even the playing field to fight our government's military?
Click to expand...

Nukes and aircraft carriers are strategic weapons. I was referring more to tactical weapons.
And I didn't say "even the playing field". I said "prevent from becoming overwhelmingly more powerful".

If someone has the resources and can pass tests for safety and training with a given weapon, then their ownership of said weapon should be allowed, (barring a background check for more dangerous ones?). Tanks are on the border between strategic and tactical, I think.

Edit: Further, using a nuke or even warplanes on your own citizens would vastly reduce your standing among the world, I would think. Barring really extreme circumstances.

Devil505 said:
So we have war zones in every city in the country?
Click to expand...
Only if someone tries to commit a terrorist like act. Did you read my reasoning as to the reduced potential for such an act, if such persons knew people in the area were so armed? Did you read my statements regarding training and safety test requirements for higher power weapons?
Further, are there not currently areas in most cities which are already war zones, in effect?

Devil505 said:
How long do you think it would have taken Dillon & Clybolt (?) to kill any armed guards at Columbine?
Should we post what would amount to private army units at every public school, shopping center, etc throughout the country?
Click to expand...

If the threat warrants such, then yes. What procedures do they use in Israel, as it would seem they have such a situation?
If we start having multiple terrorist attacks in the US, I could easily see such a situation arising.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
So citizens should own nukes, aircraft carriers & tanks to even the playing field to fight our government's military?
Click to expand...

It always goes to this absurdity, doesn't it?

You asked why the weapons an ordinary infantryman should carry should unrestricted. This is why.
.

So we have war zones in every city in the country?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that's not what he said. :roll:


How long do you think it would have taken Dillon & Clybolt (?) to kill any armed guards at Columbine?
Click to expand...

I don't know. How long? They were a couple of cowardly ****s, so they may not have even tried had they already been around.

Strangely enough, the Swiss walk around with fully-auto rifles all the time, and none of this stuff is much of a problem.
 
Harshaw said:
It always goes to this absurdity, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Not absurd at all. I was responding to the idea that citizens should be capable of defending themselves against our government. Our government has such weapons so a citizen would need the same one to make it more of a "Fair Fight"....Right?
The absurd thing is the idea that citizens should have military type weapons to defend against our own military!
.








Harshaw said:
I don't know. How long? They were a couple of cowardly ****s, so they may not have even tried had they already been around.
Click to expand...

I'd say about 3 seconds & I doubt that these suicidal crazies would have been deterred by a 65 yr old ex-cop guard sitting at the door eating a donut!;).
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
The absurd thing is the idea that citizens should have military type weapons to defend against our own military!
Click to expand...

That IS one of the purposes of the 2A.




I'd say about 3 seconds & I doubt that these suicidal crazies would have been deterred by a 65 yr old ex-cop guard sitting at the door eating a donut!;).
Click to expand...

If that's what you say, then that's what you say.
 
repeter said:
Does unregulated means whoever wants to buy a gun can buy one instantly with cash? If so, then the people who voted "no regulations are acceptable" are complete and total idiots. All there is to it.
Click to expand...

I doubt that making it illegal for a criminal to buy a gun has a hell of alot of an effect. Any criminals that want a gun can get a gun. The main difference is they are now purchasing guns that have been stolen from law abiding citizens or smugglers.
 
Devil505 said:
Not absurd at all. I was responding to the idea that citizens should be capable of defending themselves against our government. Our government has such weapons so a citizen would need the same one to make it more of a "Fair Fight"....Right?
The absurd thing is the idea that citizens should have military type weapons to defend against our own military!
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. A infantry-portable SAM can take down a military aircraft, just as infantry-portable weapons can disable or destroy most other military vehicles. A nuke would damage both the land and the reputation of a country which used it on their own people, thus most likely preventing it's use.
While you may have a point about the current unlikelihood of citizens having to defend against their own military, as all military members are currently volunteers, and thus might have friends in the citizenry, in future times this might not be the case, and my belief is that the 2nd amendment is to allow for the citizens to protect themselves against such, if it occurs.

Devil505 said:
I'd say about 3 seconds & I doubt that these suicidal crazies would have been deterred by a 65 yr old ex-cop guard sitting at the door eating a donut!;).
Click to expand...

Which is why there is, IMO, a potential for needing appropriate levels of security at schools, if such incidents continue.

Although trained and armed teachers would also assist in this.
 
The Mark said:
Not necessarily. A infantry-portable SAM can take down a military aircraft, just as infantry-portable weapons can disable or destroy most other military vehicles. A nuke would damage both the land and the reputation of a country which used it on their own people, thus most likely preventing it's use.
While you may have a point about the current unlikelihood of citizens having to defend against their own military, as all military members are currently volunteers, and thus might have friends in the citizenry, in future times this might not be the case, and my belief is that the 2nd amendment is to allow for the citizens to protect themselves against such, if it occurs.
Click to expand...

The idea that citizens should be able to fight our own military, (with it thousands of nukes, SLBM's & the like) is just a ridiculous argument, imo.



The Mark said:
Which is why there is, IMO, a potential for needing appropriate levels of security at schools, if such incidents continue.

Although trained and armed teachers would also assist in this.
Click to expand...

Ah.....So Beaver Cleaver's teacher (Miss Landers) should be wearing a bandoleer of 30cal ammo while toting an M-60 machine gun around the halls of her elementary school?:lol::shoot:eek:
 
Devil505 said:
The idea that citizens should be able to fight our own military, (with it thousands of nukes, SLBM's & the like) is just a ridiculous argument, imo.
Click to expand...

It is one of the reasons the 2A exists.

Recall what a band of malcontents were able to do against our military of thousands of nukes, SLBMs, and the like, in Iraq, and what they're still doing there and in Afghanistan. Why, many prominent members of Congress not only declared that we couldn't win, but we had actually lost.



Ah.....So Beaver Cleaver's teacher (Miss Landers) should be wearing a bandoleer of 30cal ammo while toting an M-60 machine gun around the halls of her elementary school?:lol::shoot:eek:
Click to expand...

This is the kind of absurdity I'm talking about, too.
 
Ikari said:
You shouldn't be able to buy guns with cash? People who wish to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the People are complete and total idiots. All there is to it.
Click to expand...

The idea that anyone can buy a gun, anytime is a sad, sad prospect. For example, if someone hates you, and is a in a mental institute, he can get a gun, shoot and kill you, and he'll just go back to the crazy place. That concept, that anyone, including crazies and convicts can buy guns is a horrid concept. That is what you people want when you say no regulation. You'll only care about that when a convict shoots up a bus of people with an M-16, and one of your family members is dead.
 
Devil505 said:
The idea that citizens should be able to fight our own military, (with it thousands of nukes, SLBM's & the like) is just a ridiculous argument, imo.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion.

I disagree. I would think the infantry level weapons could be used to secure access to the more powerful weapons. After all, there are military bases around.

Devil505 said:
Ah.....So Beaver Cleaver's teacher (Miss Landers) should be wearing a bandoleer of 30cal ammo while toting an M-60 machine gun around the halls of her elementary school? :lol::shoot:eek:
Click to expand...
Where did I suggest that?

I was thinking more along the lines of handguns, preferably in a shoulder holster to reduce or eliminate the effect such would have on the students.
 
Devil505 said:
Just because you don't agree with a point doesn't make the point absurd. I was referring to the quote (below)
Click to expand...

You created an absurd scenario out of what he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom