• 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
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?

When you asked for serious answers at the top of this page I assumed you wanted a substantive discussion.

Now, however, you're asking loaded questions in place of addressing the points of my argument.

You don't have a right to unconventional weapons. You never did.

***
Your question is dubious in that it's based on a false premise. The 2nd never did grant you the right to just any weapon at all. Since you never had the right to Nukes, I have no issue with the state telling you "no".

"Arms" never meant "all weapons".
 
Last edited:
"Arms" never meant "all weapons".

& you know what the founding fathers meant how?

A serious question. Why should we accept YOUR interpretation of what the word "Arms" means in the 2nd amendment?
I read it as meaning Weapons in the generic.
 
Last edited:
I can read.


So can I....& I'll ask you again:

Why should we accept YOUR interpretation of what the word "Arms" means in the 2nd amendment?
I read it as meaning Weapons in the generic.
 
The 2nd never did grant you the right to just any weapon at all. Since you never had the right to Nukes, I have no issue with the state telling you "no".

"Arms" never meant "all weapons".

Many of your fellow gun enthusiasts disagree with you & believe the 2nd amendment does .."grant you the right to just any weapon at all."....... Why are they wrong??

(I happen to agree with you, as I'm sure you know. I was just trying to draw out the far right fringe argument that I hear so often)
 
Last edited:
So can I....& I'll ask you again:

Why should we accept YOUR interpretation of what the word "Arms" means in the 2nd amendment?
I read it as meaning Weapons in the generic.

You're not taking my word for it.

I haven't said anything under my own authority.

You're taking the word of SCOTUS. It was they whom I quoted.
 
Many of your fellow gun enthusiasts disagree with you & believe the 2nd amendment does .."grant you the right to just any weapon at all."....... Why are they wrong??

(I happen to agree with you, as I'm sure you know. I was just trying to draw out the far right fringe argument that I hear so often)

They're wrong because their personal opinions are incongruent with objectively observed and verifiable legal fact, as sourced.

Opinions can be wrong, and this is one such example.
 
You're not taking my word for it.

I haven't said anything under my own authority.

You're taking the word of SCOTUS. It was they whom I quoted.


I added a sentence to my above reply b4 you answered...just FYI
 
I added a sentence to my above reply b4 you answered...just FYI

You're basically arguing with SCOTUS here. All I'm doing is relying the facts. I'm not stating anything on my own, I'm not using my own authority or offering my personal opinions. I am giving you the facts. If you read the 2nd differently, then it's you who are wrong.
 
You're basically arguing with SCOTUS here. All I'm doing is relying the facts. I'm not stating anything on my own, I'm not using my own authority or offering my personal opinions. I am giving you the facts. If you read the 2nd differently, then it's you who are wrong.


I think we had a useful an calm discussion here.
Thanks.
 
You're basically arguing with SCOTUS here. All I'm doing is relying the facts. I'm not stating anything on my own, I'm not using my own authority or offering my personal opinions. I am giving you the facts. If you read the 2nd differently, then it's you who are wrong.

Even SCOTUS should be argued with.
 
no regulationa period it is an infrngment on our constitional right that is like restricting some religon and speech
 
no regulationa period it is an infrngment on our constitional right that is like restricting some religon and speech

There are many common sense restrictions on our freedoms of speech & religion.

(ie yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater or preforming religion-based human sacrifices are not Constitutionally protected rights)
 
Last edited:
There are many common sense restrictions on our freedoms of speech & religion.

(ie yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater or preforming religion-based human sacrifices are not Constitutionally protected rights)

My possessing a firearm poses no danger to society.

My yelling fire in a crowded theater poses a lot of danger to all the occupants within that building.


Again, a negative right has no affect on anyone but the person exercising it.
 
It very well may if you are mentally incompetent, a violent criminal or some other real threat to society.

you very well could be a drug dealer, or a pedophile on the computer.

But, until it's been legally established that you're one or the other.. the law says that you're innocent until proven guilty.


****, for all I know, you could be a ****ing terrorist.. (actually afaic, you _are_ a terrorist as you were part of the DEA... and no, I don't do, sell, or otherwise distribute drugs).
 
Then if you pass the NICS check Ask.com Search Engine - Better Web Search

You should be able to buy a firearm.

I have my CCW.. meaning I've gone above and beyond the NICS check.. as my fingerprints are in the FBI database and my background has been cleared by them.

So.. should I be able to legally own whatever type of firearm I would like?
 
Back
Top Bottom