• 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
jamesrage said:
If criminals do not obey the law in the first place then why would they obey anti-2nd amendment laws? If the guy has no record then what good does a back ground check do any ways? And if the guy does have a record why would he go the legal route to purchase a firearm?
Click to expand...

Institutionally insane doesn't necessarily mean criminal. He might target a school of just minorities, and believe he is cleansing the country or something. Virginia Tech is really enough said on this subject in all. He bought a gun, legally, and then illegally shot and killed quite a few people.
 
Coronado said:
Appeal to emotion fallacy. Fail.
Click to expand...

First off, that has got to be the most pathetic thing ever.

Second, let me rephrase that. Think of the repercussions of 100 dead kindergarteners splashed across the breaking news on Fox and CNN. Of course, people are going to blame the government first for low regulations. Second, people are going to get mad at the NRA for something or the other, but they'll get off the hook. The government, however, will have to take the fall, and regulation will eventually be put in place due to the event, after exorbitant death, and god knows how many tax payer dollars to get this done.

Or, we could simply look at the facts, and put in place more background checks, laws, regulation, and whatever to keep the public safe.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have less people carrying guns, and more pissed about it, then too many carrying guns, and not enough people to say anything against it.
 
stevenb said:
Sweet!

How will you feel when a person goes to a school and shoots up the place? err.. oh.. wait.. it's already happened. :( :(

k... How will you feel when a person goes nuts and shoots everyone in a federal building? oh... err... uh.. yeah... those damn gun free zones.

k... lets see.. how will you feel when a person goes nuts and shoots up an NRA convention, or gun show? OH.. you won't.. cause it won't happen.. WHY? Because the ****ing ***** that'd shoot up other places where people are disarmed wouldn't dare shoot up a place where he'll be met with equal force in return.

How hard is that to grasp?
Click to expand...

1. It can, and probably will be worse in the future.
2. Look at #1

3. If I was going to go shoot up anyone, the first people I would personally shoot up is a bunch of gun-totting idiots, and make sure I do it good. But thats just me. And you'd also want to probably take out any resistance, in a chain of hits, so kill the local NRA at a meeting, then go **** up the area.
 
I would like to ask all of you saying no regulations are acceptable, what if your parents, lover, or children were shot and killed. The police find out that the perpetrator killed your loved one expressely because there was not enough regulation. Would that change your view point in this matter? Would you then support more regulation, or regulation at that?
 
repeter said:
First off, that has got to be the most pathetic thing ever.
Click to expand...
Yeah, logic's a bitch, ain't it? :roll:
repeter said:
Second, let me rephrase that. Think of the repercussions of 100 dead kindergarteners splashed across the breaking news on Fox and CNN. Of course, people are going to blame the government first for low regulations. Second, people are going to get mad at the NRA for something or the other, but they'll get off the hook. The government, however, will have to take the fall, and regulation will eventually be put in place due to the event, after exorbitant death, and god knows how many tax payer dollars to get this done.

Or, we could simply look at the facts, and put in place more background checks, laws, regulation, and whatever to keep the public safe.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have less people carrying guns, and more pissed about it, then too many carrying guns, and not enough people to say anything against it.
Click to expand...
Pretty much all I have to do to defeat this argument is point to Washington, D.C. It has the strictest gun laws in the country, and it has the most murders as well. Coincidence? Hardly.
 
repeter said:
I would like to ask all of you saying no regulations are acceptable, what if your parents, lover, or children were shot and killed. The police find out that the perpetrator killed your loved one expressely because there was not enough regulation. Would that change your view point in this matter? Would you then support more regulation, or regulation at that?
Click to expand...
Once again, appeal to emotion fallacy. Once again, fail.
 
repeter said:
Institutionally insane doesn't necessarily mean criminal. He might target a school of just minorities, and believe he is cleansing the country or something. Virginia Tech is really enough said on this subject in all. He bought a gun, legally, and then illegally shot and killed quite a few people.
Click to expand...

Not true. The background check left out his mental illness. He should not have been able to purchase the weapon to begin with.

In the end we can't stop everyone. This does not mean you punish the majority.

So far your arguments consist of speculation and appeals to emotion (fallacy) with no facts to back any of it up.

Pretty much epic fail on all fronts.
 
Last edited:
repeter said:
Institutionally insane doesn't necessarily mean criminal.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't change the fact criminals do not obey the law. If the law says its illegal for someone who is institutionally insane and that individual wishes to murder people then anti-2nd amendment laws are not going to stop him from getting his hands on a firearm.
 
repeter said:
1. It can, and probably will be worse in the future.
2. Look at #1

3. If I was going to go shoot up anyone, the first people I would personally shoot up is a bunch of gun-totting idiots, and make sure I do it good. But thats just me. And you'd also want to probably take out any resistance, in a chain of hits, so kill the local NRA at a meeting, then go **** up the area.
Click to expand...

That'd be a funny sight to see... I imagine you'd kill maybe 1 or two before you died of terminal lead poisoning.

Joking about it much as you have, really shows your true colors though.

repeter said:
I would like to ask all of you saying no regulations are acceptable, what if your parents, lover, or children were shot and killed. The police find out that the perpetrator killed your loved one expressely because there was not enough regulation. Would that change your view point in this matter? Would you then support more regulation, or regulation at that?
Click to expand...

omg!

What if my mom or someone in my family were killed by a drunk driver! We need to make drinking and driving MORE illegal...

Oh wait, I live in the state with the toughest DUI laws in the country.. and people still do it...

Kinda blows your whole... idea of more regulation == Less crime... out of the water.

Furthering my point, look at Washington DC, New York, and ****cago for further references as to why gun control doesn't work.
 
jamesrage said:
I am against background checks. The government has no business imposing preconditions to rights.
Click to expand...
Even the NRA doesn't oppose background checks
Ask.com Search Engine - Better Web Search

They think the system could be improved but they are not against background checks, per se.

Here is the FBI's page on NICS Federal Bureau of Investigation - NICS: The National Instant Criminal Background Check System & I can't think of a single reasonable argument against these background checks that even the NRA agrees to.

Now.....I personally think that a 1 week time period for a background check would be reasonable (to me) but have already agreed to accept the 20-60 minute "Instant" check as mentioned b4.
 
Devil505 said:
Even the NRA doesn't oppose background checks
Ask.com Search Engine - Better Web Search

They think the system could be improved but they are not against background checks, per se.

Here is the FBI's page on NICS Federal Bureau of Investigation - NICS: The National Instant Criminal Background Check System & I can't think of a single reasonable argument against these background checks that even the NRA agrees to.

Now.....I personally think that a 1 week time period for a background check would be reasonable (to me) but have already agreed to accept the 20-60 minute "Instant" check as mentioned b4.
Click to expand...

Hi, the NRA isn't exactly pro-2a like they used to be.


If you'd like an example of a real organization protecting our rights... take a look at the Jews for the Preservation of...
 
Devil505 said:
Even the NRA doesn't oppose background checks
Ask.com Search Engine - Better Web Search

They think the system could be improved but they are not against background checks, per se.

Here is the FBI's page on NICS Federal Bureau of Investigation - NICS: The National Instant Criminal Background Check System & I can't think of a single reasonable argument against these background checks that even the NRA agrees to.

Now.....I personally think that a 1 week time period for a background check would be reasonable (to me) but have already agreed to accept the 20-60 minute "Instant" check as mentioned b4.
Click to expand...

The NRA is viewed as sellouts on the second amendment, nice try though. I suppose that when you are really not a supporter of the 2nd amendment or you think that the second amendment should be abolished then you probably would see the NRA as pro-2nd amendment instead of sellouts.

For Those Still Believing In The NRA Or The Tooth Fairy - By Michael Gaddy - Price of Liberty

Ambushed by the NRA on HR2640!

NRA sells out on gun rights - Orange Punch - OCRegister.com

Colorado Conservative Project: NRA Sells Out Again

The Brady Registration Scheme

Opposing Views: NEWS: NRA Sells Out, Helps Pass Massive Brady Gun Control Expansion

NRA: Pro Second or Government Lapdogs? Price of Liberty

Ambushed by the NRA on HR2640!
 
Last edited:
stevenb said:
Hi, the NRA isn't exactly pro-2a like they used to be.


If you'd like an example of a real organization protecting our rights... take a look at the Jews for the Preservation of...
Click to expand...
My personal favorite is Gun Owners of America. They make the NRA sound like the Brady Campaign.
 
repeter said:
I would like to ask all of you saying no regulations are acceptable, what if your parents, lover, or children were shot and killed. The police find out that the perpetrator killed your loved one expressely because there was not enough regulation. Would that change your view point in this matter? Would you then support more regulation, or regulation at that?
Click to expand...

Didn't this type of argument already get smacked down already? What if someone buys and SUV and then loses control and runs into my house killing my grandmother and best friend? I mean, there's only so much you can get out of the appeal to emotion and probability game.
 
repeter said:
And how will you feel when...a school full of children is massacred by some institutionally insane man, because he could get a gun anywhere, anytime???
Click to expand...

I know how I felt when school's full of children were massacred because an institutional insane man was able to bypass all existing gun laws and get an assault rifle anyway.

You people who still think "gun free zones" are a good idea have no business commenting on the guy who carries to a discussion because you are doing more harm than he with your policies.
 
Jerry said:
I know how I felt when school's full of children were massacred because an institutional insane man was able to bypass all existing gun laws and get an assault rifle anyway.

You people who still think "gun free zones" are a good idea have no business commenting on the guy who carries to a discussion because you are doing more harm than he with your policies.
Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA"]YouTube - Gun Free Zone - Get Yours Today![/ame]
The only thing these school shootings prove is that unarmed people are easy targets for victimization. If the teachers,students security guards were armed then that wacko would have not been able to kill as many people as he did or he may have even been stopped before he could do anything. If that bus driver and any other adult on the school bus were armed then they wouldn't have to worry about some institutionally insane man killing all of them.
 
Since the 2nd amendment says: "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."

& since our early citizens had access to the most modern & lethal weapons of the time, why do some of you think that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own small, tactical nukes?(they are getting smaller & cheaper to build every day & there are plenty of law abiding citizens that could afford to buy them) What rationale is there for for the government to infringe on my constitutional right to own a nuke? (so what if I may have a nutty son who likes to torture animals, has no friends & keeps a poster of the Columbine killers on his wall.....I have never broken a law in my life & I want a nuke!!.......I'll lock it up.....I promise!)

(serious answers please....give me a good reason why I can't own one?)
 
Last edited:
Because governments shouldn't be able to own them either.
 
Devil505 said:
(serious answers please....give me a good reason why I can't own one?)
Click to expand...

Tactical nukes are not a part of a militia's armaments. They are not a tool that accomplishes objectives militias accomplish. Neither is the ICBM, Las Angalis Class sub, or aircraft carrier.

When our infantry carries tactical nukes on the shoulder, like you see in Star-ship Troopers, then, and only then, will your argument have grounds.

Tactical nukes and other WMDs are not "arms", so you have no right to them to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Since the 2nd amendment says: "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."

& since our early citizens had access to the most modern & lethal weapons of the time, why do some of you think that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own small, tactical nukes?(they are getting smaller & cheaper to build every day & there are plenty of law abiding citizens that could afford to buy them) What rationale is there for for the government to infringe on my constitutional right to own a nuke? (so what if I may have a nutty son who likes to torture animals, has no friends & keeps a poster of the Columbine killers on his wall.....I have never broken a law in my life & I want a nuke!!.......I'll lock it up.....I promise!)

(serious answers please....give me a good reason why I can't own one?)
Click to expand...



An additional question for you:


Anyone wanna buy the house next to mine? (It has a nice home theater & a heated in ground pool!)
 
Jerry said:
Tactical nukes are not a part of a militia's armaments. They are not a tool that accomplishes objectives militias accomplish. Neither is the ICBM, Las Angalis Class sub, or aircraft carrier.

When our infantry carries tactical nukes on the shoulder, like you see in Star-ship Troopers, then, and only then, will your argument have grounds.

Tactical nukes and other WMDs are not "arms", so you have no right to them to begin with.
Click to expand...

Can you point out exactly where in the 2nd amendment it says that
my weapon must be "a tool that accomplishes objectives militias accomplish."???

I can't find that wording anywhere in my copy of the Constitution??..... Is it in yours??
 
Jerry said:
Tactical nukes and other WMDs are not "arms", so you have no right to them to begin with.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.......Dictionary definition says ;




Definitions of 'arm'
(ärm)
Dictionary.com · The American Heritage® Dictionary

[From Middle English armes, weapons, from Old French pl. of arme, weapon, from Latin arma, weapons, V., Middle English armen, from Old French armer, from Latin armāre, from arma.]
(noun)

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.


A nuke is a weapon, right?
 
Devil505 said:
Can you point out exactly where in the 2nd amendment it says that
my weapon must be "a tool that accomplishes objectives militias accomplish."???

I can't find that wording anywhere in my copy of the Constitution??..... Is it in yours??
Click to expand...

Yeah it's right after the part about abortion.

U.S. Supreme Court: Heller v. DC

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Click to expand...

Like VX gass and Anthrax, tactical Nukes are not "in common use" by militias, who's expressed point and purpose is to enable the state to leave the union and stand on it's own if/when the Union became tyrannical.

Even if an individual state owns Fireflies, that doesn't mean the citizen can also.
 
Jerry said:
Yeah it's right after the part about abortion.



Like VX gass and Anthrax, tactical Nukes are not "in common use" by militias, who's expressed point and purpose is to enable the state to leave the union and stand on it's own if/when the Union became tyrannical.

Even if an individual state owns Fireflies, that doesn't mean the citizen can also.
Click to expand...

So....Do YOU agree that our government can infringe on my right to own certain weapons, even though it is prohibited from doing so by the 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."

Notice it says "Arms"....not firearms...so I argue it was meant to include all weapons, otherwise why didn't they limit it to Firearms?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom