• 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?


  • Total voters
    70
The following states allow private ownership of machine guns if registered with ATF: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WV, WI, WY.

The ATF should be turned from "law enforcement" into a convenience store, and I don't think anyone should have to register, especially with the federal government. They have no reason to need to know what guns I have.
 
Poor guy spent so much money on an expensive shotgun, he couldn't afford a skeet launcher. :mrgreen:

I'd like to know what the shotgun shells were loaded with...Sand to spread out quickly??
 
I'd like to know what the shotgun shells were loaded with...Sand to spread out quickly??

Probably #4 bird shot of sorts...
 
Most LEO's (that I know) favor reasonable gun laws & want fewer guns on the street.

Most of the ones I have discussed the matter with are more in line with my position than yours, and every State that has had a strong push for concealed carry permits has had the full and enthusiastic support of the majority of that State's law enforcement officials. Obviously, most of them think that I take my position too far-- but everyone who agrees with me on nearly every issue think that I take my position too far.l

Do they want fewer guns in the hands of criminals? Certainly. Will they use every possible gun law they can apply to accomplish this? Absolutely. Do they normally support more limitations on the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms? You're the only cop I've ever heard of in favor of stricter gun control. Maybe if I lived in Chicago or DC or New York, I could see more of it-- but I have very specific reasons for not wanting to be near any one of those cities if I can help it at all.

We are the ones that have to face these weapons every day & it's not a hypothetical, college debate discussion to us.......It's the difference between going home after work or going to a city morgue!

And yet, being faced with those weapons every day, most of your colleague recognize and respect the rights of citizens like myself to defend ourselves against them.

Though... I'd be a little more comfortable if I could count on more police to support my right to wear body armor.
 
I said EASILY not LEGALLY like you said.

If machine guns were more prevalent they would be easier to get by crazies.....Legality has nothing to do with it.

So basically what you are saying is that machine guns should be illegal because someone who is crazy mite go on a killing spree? I mean that is what you have said so far ignoring all the stats posted etc.

Please post some evidence to support your position. So far according to statistics your opinion has no real bearing at all.
 
Last edited:
And yet, being faced with those weapons every day, most of your colleague recognize and respect the rights of citizens like myself to defend ourselves against them.
When did I say that I don't "respect the rights of citizens like myself to defend ourselves"?
I absolutely agree with that but I don't think you need military weapons to do that, & neither do any of the cops I know. I think most of us agree that the best weapon for home defense is the simple & cheap 12 gauge shotgun. Even for normal police work, the utility of fully automatic weapons is less than the simple shotgun. (SWAT units & dealing with terrorists is not what I would consider normal police work....They need such weapons....Most cops don't & no civilians need such weapons, imo)

Though... I'd be a little more comfortable if I could count on more police to support my right to wear body armor.
Under what circumstance would you, (an average civilian I presume) need to wear heavy, hot, bullet resistant body armor?
 
Declaration of Independence

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

2nd Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Weather anyone has the opinion that civilians don't need arms equal to the military or not is moot. It is needed and should be allowed for the above quoted reasons. In this case no ones opinion matters as it has been clearly stated by our Founding Fathers that it should be allowed.

Being allowed to not have automatic weapons when the Military has the use of them and far more sophisticated weapons takes the power of being able to defend ones self against tyranny away. Which makes it to where the government can become tyrannical far far easier with each advance that is not allowed to the general populace.
 
So basically what you are saying is that machine guns should be illegal because someone who is crazy mite go on a killing spree? I mean that is what you have said so far ignoring all the stats posted etc.

Please post some evidence to support your position. So far according to statistics your opinion has no real bearing at all.

My OPINION is that I think the danger of any device should be weighed against the beneift that device gives to our crowded society.

Example:
Motor vehicles kill more of us each year than all the guns combined......BUT.....motor vehicles are essential devices to keep our society functioning, Therefore.....It is an acceptable trade-off.

In my estimation & obviously most voters (as shown by the legislation that is almost universal) Firearms can be very dangerous to us collectively & therefore require REASONABLE restrictions on their type, ownership, & use.
Thde individual's right to keep & bare arms does not negate our collective right to reasonably regulate them.

(most states requires brakes to be in working order for you to legally operate a motor vehicle in the state. Why should we not have the same collective right to reasonably control firearms?)


I see no societal need that (example) machine guns serve vs their potential danger to us.(hunters cannot/should not use machine guns, machine guns are unnecessary for home defense, etc)

Opinion:
Therefore, since they have little to no utility for society in general, they should be tightly regulated to keep the numbers down.
 
Last edited:
Under what circumstance would you, (an average civilian I presume) need to wear heavy, hot, bullet resistant body armor?

The same reason Police wear those things, for protection.
 
The same reason Police wear those things, for protection.

How often do you arrest dangerous criminals, make vehicle stops or kick down doors to serve arrest warrants?
(I personally am not hard core against civilians wearing body armor anyway. I think the discomfort would have most of them thrown in the trash anyway)
 
Last edited:
My OPINION is that I think the danger of any device should be weighed against the beneift that device gives to our crowded society.

Example:
Motor vehicles kill more of us each year than all the guns combined......BUT.....motor vehicles are essential devices to keep our society functioning, Therefore.....It is an acceptable trade-off.

In my estimation & obviously most voters (as shown by the legislation that is almost universal) Firearms can be very dangerous to us collectively & therefore require REASONABLE restrictions on their type, ownership, & use.
Thde individual's right to keep & bare arms does not negate our collective right to reasonably regulate them.

(most states requires brakes to be in working order for you to legally operate a motor vehicle in the state. Why should we not have the same collective right to reasonably control firearms?)


I see no societal need that (example) machine guns serve vs their potential danger to us.(hunters cannot/should not use machine guns, machine guns are unnecessary for home defense, etc)

Opinion:
Therefore, since they have little to no utility for society in general, they should be tightly regulated to keep the numbers down.

The general population being just as armed us the military ensures that the government can not become tyrannical and ensures that if we are ever invaded we have the means to adequately protect ourselves. Therefore the 2nd amendment is very beneficial to society.
 
The general population being just as armed us the military ensures that the government can not become tyrannical and ensures that if we are ever invaded we have the means to adequately protect ourselves. Therefore the 2nd amendment is very beneficial to society.

I never bought that argument. If you take that thinking to its logical conclusion, civilians would need nukes, aircraft carriers & jet fighter to have a fair fight against their government.
To me..that's a small, far right "Fringe" argument that very few believe.
 
Last edited:
The general population being just as armed us the military ensures that the government can not become tyrannical and ensures that if we are ever invaded we have the means to adequately protect ourselves. Therefore the 2nd amendment is very beneficial to society.

Would be nice...."every American is a rifleman first"....has a nice ring to it ;)
 
My OPINION is that I think the danger of any device should be weighed against the beneift that device gives to our crowded society.

Example:
Motor vehicles kill more of us each year than all the guns combined......BUT.....motor vehicles are essential devices to keep our society functioning, Therefore.....It is an acceptable trade-off.

In my estimation & obviously most voters (as shown by the legislation that is almost universal) Firearms can be very dangerous to us collectively & therefore require REASONABLE restrictions on their type, ownership, & use.
Thde individual's right to keep & bare arms does not negate our collective right to reasonably regulate them.

(most states requires brakes to be in working order for you to legally operate a motor vehicle in the state. Why should we not have the same collective right to reasonably control firearms?)


I see no societal need that (example) machine guns serve vs their potential danger to us.(hunters cannot/should not use machine guns, machine guns are unnecessary for home defense, etc)

Opinion:
Therefore, since they have little to no utility for society in general, they should be tightly regulated to keep the numbers down.

Well since your opinion flies in the face of the facts, and you do not wish to present any facts to support your position, nothing left to debate here. :gunner: :bolt
 
I never bought that argument. If you take that thinking to its logical conclusion, civilians would need nukes, aircraft carriers & jet fighter to have a fair fight against their government.

I seriously doubt the government would nuke its own country,aircraft carriers do not do any good on land and a heavily armed civilian militia can probably take out or take over military bases ensure that no jets can take off or land or use the jet fuel.
 
My OPINION is that I think the danger of any device should be weighed against the beneift that device gives to our crowded society.

Example:
Motor vehicles kill more of us each year than all the guns combined......BUT.....motor vehicles are essential devices to keep our society functioning, Therefore.....It is an acceptable trade-off.

In my estimation & obviously most voters (as shown by the legislation that is almost universal) Firearms can be very dangerous to us collectively & therefore require REASONABLE restrictions on their type, ownership, & use.
Thde individual's right to keep & bare arms does not negate our collective right to reasonably regulate them.

(most states requires brakes to be in working order for you to legally operate a motor vehicle in the state. Why should we not have the same collective right to reasonably control firearms?)


I see no societal need that (example) machine guns serve vs their potential danger to us.(hunters cannot/should not use machine guns, machine guns are unnecessary for home defense, etc)

Opinion:
Therefore, since they have little to no utility for society in general, they should be tightly regulated to keep the numbers down.

Knives, Baseball bats, tire irons, and various other inanimate objects all pose equal if not more prevelant threats to our safety..

But we're not regulating them... Why?

btw, I'm not sure if you've caught onto the notion yet.. that inanimate objects don't do anything by themselves... They require intervention to do anything...
 
I never bought that argument. If you take that thinking to its logical conclusion, civilians would need nukes, aircraft carriers & jet fighter to have a fair fight against their government.
To me..that's a small, far right "Fringe" argument that very few believe.

Nukes would not be needed as no government would use nukes against it's own populace as that would SEVERLY damage their public images with not only its civilians but also it's world image.

And as far as fighter jets why not allow civilians to have them? Assuming that they can pass the flight tests I see no reason to not allow them to have jets. Of course it's not like private airplanes couldn't be outfitted with weapons anyways.

Aircraft carriers? Actually I don't think that there is a law stating that civilians can't have ships that can carry/launch aircraft.
 
Well since your opinion flies in the face of the facts, and you do not wish to present any facts to support your position, nothing left to debate here. :gunner: :bolt

I was very explicit in stating my OPINIONS. I don' claim they are anything but opinions, so I have nothing that requires proof to you.
My opinion is that strawberry ice cream tastes better than chocolate.
Can I prove it...to your satisfaction?....Of course not.

I have stated no opinions that "fly in the face of facts."
 
Knives, Baseball bats, tire irons, and various other inanimate objects all pose equal if not more prevelant threats to our safety..

But we're not regulating them... Why?
Because their benefit to society outweighs their danger.

A machine gun's danger far outweighs any benefit to normal society. (that's why the NFA regulates them so tightly & has since 1934)
 
Last edited:
Because their benefit to society outweighs their danger.

If it weren't for private firearms we wouldn't have America, so how's that for a "benefit to society" :2razz:
 
I was very explicit in stating my OPINIONS. I don' claim they are anything but opinions, so I have nothing that requires proof to you.
My opinion is that strawberry ice cream tastes better than chocolate.
Can I prove it...to your satisfaction?....Of course not.

I have stated no opinions that "fly in the face of facts."

If my "opinion" disagrees with your "opinion" but mine is backed up by facts, what does this say to you?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-2nd-amnendment-rights-27.html#post1058213550

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-2nd-amnendment-rights-28.html#post1058213754

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-2nd-amnendment-rights-28.html#post1058213785

Now as I said if you have no facts to back up your opinion, we have no debate.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom