• 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
Bodhisattva said:
I think that exact opposite... since people came up with the Rights, it is people that can void or change the Rights.
Anybody who does not understand this concept needs to be seriously ignored.
Click to expand...

Bodh, I take a slightly different tack.

I believe the right to self-defense is inherent in all living beings.

Everything that lives and has a brain, has some will to survive and continue living, and will fight or flee attempts to take its life.

So it is with people. Virtually every human being will fight or flee someone attempting to kill him.

If we believe murder (unjust homicide) is wrong, then it follows that the inborn desire to live, the instinctive willingness to fight against being murdered, must be right. Therefore I consider self-defense to be a natural right of all humanity, not granted by people or government but inborn.

Given that disarming criminals simply isn't a practical solution (ie it doesn't work), it follows that honest citizens must be allowed the necessary tools to defend themselves against criminals. Firearms are the most effective tools.

If self-defense is a natural right, then having the means to engage in effective self-defense against the common threat of the armed criminal is also a natural right.

The problem with this poll and question from the very beginning is, who defines what constitutes "reasonable regulations"?


Infringing on a natural right, with prior-restraint laws, is wrong. Only those items that have no use to individual self-defense or service in the unorganized militia (which is all the people) can be rightfully restricted; or those individuals who have demonstrated their unfitness due to committing violent crime, or addiction to substances that severely impair judgement, or potentially dangerous insanity/incapacity.
 
Goshin said:
Bodh, I take a slightly different tack.

I believe the right to self-defense is inherent in all living beings.

Everything that lives and has a brain, has some will to survive and continue living, and will fight or flee attempts to take its life.

So it is with people. Virtually every human being will fight or flee someone attempting to kill him.

If we believe murder (unjust homicide) is wrong, then it follows that the inborn desire to live, the instinctive willingness to fight against being murdered, must be right. Therefore I consider self-defense to be a natural right of all humanity, not granted by people or government but inborn.

Given that disarming criminals simply isn't a practical solution (ie it doesn't work), it follows that honest citizens must be allowed the necessary tools to defend themselves against criminals. Firearms are the most effective tools.

If self-defense is a natural right, then having the means to engage in effective self-defense against the common threat of the armed criminal is also a natural right.

The problem with this poll and question from the very beginning is, who defines what constitutes "reasonable regulations"?


Infringing on a natural right, with prior-restraint laws, is wrong. Only those items that have no use to individual self-defense or service in the unorganized militia (which is all the people) can be rightfully restricted; or those individuals who have demonstrated their unfitness due to committing violent crime, or addiction to substances that severely impair judgement, or potentially dangerous insanity/incapacity.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how it is different, really... since i was simply talking about the peoples right to write laws. I agree with your entire post dead on. Everyone (except those deemed unfit i.e. criminals or insane, etc) should be allowed to, and encouraged to, own guns. Since they are all a part of the militia, they are then also better equipped to defend the nation against tyranny or invasion (an argument that so many pro-gun advocates seem to ignore for some reason *shrugs*).
 
Goshin said:
Bodh, I take a slightly different tack.

I believe the right to self-defense is inherent in all living beings.

Everything that lives and has a brain, has some will to survive and continue living, and will fight or flee attempts to take its life.

So it is with people. Virtually every human being will fight or flee someone attempting to kill him.

If we believe murder (unjust homicide) is wrong, then it follows that the inborn desire to live, the instinctive willingness to fight against being murdered, must be right. Therefore I consider self-defense to be a natural right of all humanity, not granted by people or government but inborn.

Given that disarming criminals simply isn't a practical solution (ie it doesn't work), it follows that honest citizens must be allowed the necessary tools to defend themselves against criminals. Firearms are the most effective tools.

If self-defense is a natural right, then having the means to engage in effective self-defense against the common threat of the armed criminal is also a natural right.

The problem with this poll and question from the very beginning is, who defines what constitutes "reasonable regulations"?


Infringing on a natural right, with prior-restraint laws, is wrong. Only those items that have no use to individual self-defense or service in the unorganized militia (which is all the people) can be rightfully restricted; or those individuals who have demonstrated their unfitness due to committing violent crime, or addiction to substances that severely impair judgement, or potentially dangerous insanity/incapacity.
Click to expand...

A few points:

What you describe as a "Right" of self defense, I would describe as a naturally occurring self-preservation instinct in almost all living creatures on this planet. I do not consider it either a "Right' or a wrong.....It just IS.

That being said, I also believe that all groupings of humans will, early on, band together & make some rules to ensure the preservation of their "Group" & that this instinct stems from the natural self-preservation instinct within each individual within that group.
When you say this: "The problem with this poll and question from the very beginning is, who defines what constitutes "reasonable regulations"?......I don't agree that the statement is a "Problem" as much as it is a concession to reality. I deliberately left the definition of "Reasonable" open & undefined as I realized that this will always be the basic problem for any society to struggle with.
Who defines reasonable therefore must be a collective, negotiated decision ultimately agreed on by the societal group itself & not one imposed by an outside authority, for it to work.

In our modern society, with the lethality of the devices we can produce (& thus the danger they present to us as a group), I think it simply unreasonable to have no rules governing the individual's ....access to..... .use of ..... & location of use in regards to these devices....whether they be motor vehicles, explosive devices or firearms.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
I am not sure how it is different, really... since i was simply talking about the peoples right to write laws. I agree with your entire post dead on. Everyone (except those deemed unfit i.e. criminals or insane, etc) should be allowed to, and encouraged to, own guns. Since they are all a part of the militia, they are then also better equipped to defend the nation against tyranny or invasion (an argument that so many pro-gun advocates seem to ignore for some reason *shrugs*).
Click to expand...

An excellent point. It is attributed to Gen Yamamoto (Japan, ww2) that he advised the Japanese High Command against attempting to invade mainland USA because "there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass". :mrgreen:
 
Devil505 said:
A few points:

What you describe as a "Right" of self defense, I would describe as a naturally occurring self-preservation instinct in almost all living creatures on this planet. I do not consider it either a "Right' or a wrong.....It just IS.
Click to expand...

...and that is what "a right" IS:

–noun
18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.

Rights Definition | Definition of Rights at Dictionary.com

...you have the right to defend yourself. ;)
 
Goshin said:
An excellent point. It is attributed to Gen Yamamoto (Japan, ww2) that he advised the Japanese High Command against attempting to invade mainland USA because "there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass". :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

...and right he was. I lived in Southern Cal and in Huntington Beach there (until recently) were gun bunkers built that housed guns to repel a potential Japanese invasion. Crazy...
 
Goshin said:
An excellent point. It is attributed to Gen Yamamoto (Japan, ww2) that he advised the Japanese High Command against attempting to invade mainland USA because "there would be a rifleman behind every blade of grass". :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Bingo.

And gun-controled socialist hellholes are just asking to be invaded every quarter century or so...

ChronicleMonkey2.JPG


angry_muslimscopy.jpg


:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Alex Libman said:
Bingo.

And gun-controled socialist hellholes are just asking to be invaded every quarter century or so...

ChronicleMonkey2.JPG
Click to expand...

I guess that we should kiss San Francisco goodbye then.
 
Well...I guess it boils down to this:
If you agree that the state has a right to regulate the operation of motor vehicles (working brakes, lights required, etc) as a safety concession for us all, then it would be inconsistent to argue the state (Us) doesn't have that same right when it comes to firearms.....Constitutional specification of rights not withstanding. (we have a Constitutional right of free speech but that is subject to regulations as well)
 
Devil505 said:
Well...I guess it boils down to this:
If you agree that the state has a right to regulate the operation of motor vehicles (working brakes, lights required, etc) as a safety concession for us all, then it would be inconsistent to argue the state (Us) doesn't have that same right when it comes to firearms.....Constitutional specification of rights not withstanding. (we have a Constitutional right of free speech but that is subject to regulations as well)
Click to expand...

Only when said speech is used to cause harm or injury. That is the same with the regulations regarding fire arms. That is what is consistent. operation of a motor vehicle falls nowhere near the outlines of the US Constitution though...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Only when said speech is used to cause harm or injury.
Click to expand...
You have a point (use) but I would argue a difference in danger to society makes firearms different than speech. It would be a stretch to ague that words have the same immediate lethal danger as a crazed, suicidal teen with an automatic weapon in a public school or shopping mall. Therefore, the firearm should be more closely regulated due to its immediate lethality.


Bodhisattva said:
operation of a motor vehicle falls nowhere near the outlines of the US Constitution though...
Click to expand...
I think a Constitutional lawyer could make a compelling argument that it is implied in it.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
You have a point (use) but I would argue a difference in danger to society makes firearms different than speech. It would be a stretch to ague that words have the same immediate lethal danger as a crazed, suicidal teen with an automatic weapon in a public school or shopping mall. Therefore, the firearm should be more closely regulated due to its immediate lethality.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. I think that fire arms are already more closely regulated though. Nobody has to have a permit to stand on a street corner and make a speech.


I think a Constitutional lawyer could make an impelling argument that it is implied in it.
Click to expand...

If there was money in it, I am sure one would certainly try too! :lol:
 
I voted for some regulations because I don't have a problem with ensuring that people who have shown that they pose a likely threat to the health and lives of others, either through past criminal actions or psychological evaluations, should not have guns. And I'm sure I may upset some, but I can also see a need for not allowing just anyone to run around with an automatic weapon (although I don't have a problem with people owning them for collections, I just don't think there is an actual legitimate reason for someone to be walking around with one in public). I wouldn't go too much further than these. Granted I see the things like chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons for personal use being banned as a no-brainer. And anything that isn't actually available on the market yet would have to be judged on case-by-case bases in the future.

I will bring up that I think the bill HR 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act stinks. Two of my main concerns with it, although there are others, is the provision that the Attorney General can change the qualifications to getting and keeping a license at any time and the provision that they can come in and inspect where firearms are stored. Even with the qualifier, this sounds shady.

^(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding--
any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

^In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held.

Of course, the fee is another complaint. Especially since the license needs to be periodically renewed. This would be crappy to have to pay a periodic fee for a right granted in the Bill of Rights.
 
roguenuke said:
I voted for some regulations because I don't have a problem with ensuring that people who have shown that they pose a likely threat to the health and lives of others, either through past criminal actions or psychological evaluations, should not have guns. And I'm sure I may upset some, but I can also see a need for not allowing just anyone to run around with an automatic weapon (although I don't have a problem with people owning them for collections, I just don't think there is an actual legitimate reason for someone to be walking around with one in public).
Click to expand...
If I understand what you are saying, you & I are pretty much i n agreement in that we both evidently believe a "Usefulness to society" test is legitimate & that if any dangerous device has little to no use to society in general, that is can & should be strictly regulated.

roguenuke said:
I wouldn't go too much further than these. Granted I see the things like chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons for personal use being banned as a no-brainer. And anything that isn't actually available on the market yet would have to be judged on case-by-case bases in the future.
Click to expand...
It amazes me how some people won't even concede the danger of those things though???..What possible societal benefit could be derived from individuals owning biological weapons???:confused: (yet some people respond by just quoting the text of the 2nd Amandment......Congress shall make no law...etc...as if the founding fathers prohibited intelligent thought to be allowed after they were gone......ridiculous!!)

roguenuke said:
I will bring up that I think the bill HR 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act stinks. Two of my main concerns with it, although there are others, is the provision that the Attorney General can change the qualifications to getting and keeping a license at any time and the provision that they can come in and inspect where firearms are stored. Even with the qualifier, this sounds shady.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar enough with that bill to have an opinion either way.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
If I understand what you are saying, you & I are pretty much i n agreement in that we both evidently believe a "Usefulness to society" test is legitimate & that if any dangerous device has little to no use to society in general, that is can & should be strictly regulated.
Click to expand...

That's brilliant. Base our rights on what is useful to society. Society above the individual, the collective first sort of thinking. That's probably the worst place to put ruling authority of our rights into. Turns out like all the other commie countries. I mean, that was all for the society too.

Devil505 said:
It amazes me how some people won't even concede the danger of those things though???..What possible societal benefit could be derived from individuals owning biological weapons???:confused: (yet some people respond by just quoting the text of the 2nd Amandment......Congress shall make no law...etc...as if the founding fathers prohibited intelligent thought to be allowed after they were gone......ridiculous!!)
Click to expand...

It amazes me how some people don't understand the responsibilities and consequences of freedom and liberty. Of course it's dangerous, it's free. Free is dangerous, it's never safe because you are allowing the free exercise of one's rights. Given enough people and time someone will take advantage of it. Free is inherently dangerous. Always has been, always will be. You either accept the consequences and burdens of freedom or you live as a slave; those are the choices. You can probably live very comfortably as a slave, but it's not free.

Devil505 said:
I'm not familiar enough with that bill to have an opinion either way.
Click to expand...

The bill is a horrible commie law aimed at removing guns as a right. Once it's about permits and inspections; it's no longer a right. But if y'all are ok with allowing the government to legislate our rights away; well then don't come crying when it all blows up in your face. Cause it will.
 
Devil505 said:
In our modern society, with the lethality of the devices we can produce (& thus the danger they present to us as a group), I think it simply unreasonable to have no rules governing the individual's ....access to..... .use of ..... & location of use in regards to these devices....whether they be motor vehicles, explosive devices or firearms.
Click to expand...
Not that you'll actually try to answer his but...
Who, exactly, argues for "no rules"?
 
Devil505 said:
Well...I guess it boils down to this:
If you agree that the state has a right to regulate the operation of motor vehicles (working brakes, lights required, etc) as a safety concession for us all, then it would be inconsistent to argue the state (Us) doesn't have that same right when it comes to firearms.
Click to expand...
Absolutely incorrect.
Driving on public roads is a privilege.
Keeping and bearing arms is a right.
Arguing that because the state may regulate the former it may then regulate the latter in a similar manner is non-sequitur.

Constitutional specification of rights not withstanding. (we have a Constitutional right of free speech but that is subject to regulations as well)
Click to expand...
As I noted before, and as you ignored, any and all constitutional restrictions on the right to arms would necessarily parallel those on the right to free speech.
 
Goobieman said:
Not that you'll actually try to answer his but...
Who, exactly, argues for "no rules"?
Click to expand...

According to the poll....33 people right here believe that.

(if you tell me that rule aren't the same as regulations this conversation is over....No semantic weed forest please!)
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
According to the poll....33 people right here believe that.
Click to expand...
I didn't task for who chose that poll response, I asked for who argues it.
Please quote one example.
 
Goobieman said:
I didn't task for who chose that poll response, I asked for who argues it.
Please quote one example.
Click to expand...


You want NAMES!?!?!.

You are not a serious debater.(all you ever do is challenge people to waste their time weeding through posts & then ignore their replies....if they are dumb enough to fall for your 4th grade tricks)

Sorry....I'm not taking your lame bait or falling for your stupid word games........Find a dumb target,. (& you wonder why people ignore you??)
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
You want NAMES!?!?!.
Click to expand...
No, as should be obvious from my post, I want quotes.
If you cannot supply any, then you'll have to admit that no one makes that argument.

You are not a serious debater...
Click to expand...
As the desert said to the grain of sand (see next post).
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Absolutely incorrect.
Driving on public roads is a privilege.
Keeping and bearing arms is a right.
Arguing that because the state may regulate the former it may then regulate the latter in a similar manner is non-sequitur.


As I noted before, and as you ignored, any and all constitutional restrictions on the right to arms would necessarily parallel those on the right to free speech.
Click to expand...

Waiting for a response...
 
Goobieman said:
No, as should be obvious from my post, I want quotes.
Click to expand...

Here's your answer from the poll above...I'm done


No. It's a Constitutional Right & no regulatioins are acceptable. 33
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Not wasting my time anymore with you.:2wave:
Click to expand...
That's because you are not a serious debater -- all you ever do is challenge people to waste their time weeding through posts & then ignore their replies -- IF they are dumb enough to fall for your 4th grade tricks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom