• 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
any body else want to get back on topic
 
Devil505 said:
Here's your answer from the poll above...I'm done
No. It's a Constitutional Right & no regulatioins are acceptable. 33
Click to expand...
So you -cannot- provide any quotes from anyone that makes that argument.
Thanks.
 
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...

Still waiting for a response.
 
Goobieman said:
You can start by respondng to this post:
Click to expand...

Look...Some of us actually want to get back on topic here. I'm through playing...The next post of yours that attempts to derail this topic will get reported so that you can be (hopefully) removed from this thread.

Knock it off!
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Look...Some of us actually want to get back on topic here. I'm through playing...The next post of yours that attempts to derail this topic will get reported so that you can be (hopefully) removed from this thread.

Knock it off!
Click to expand...

Yawn.


So you can continue filling the thread with "automatic weapons" this that, and hand grenades / swine flu.


You've done nothing but try and divert from the actual thread.. and when called on it.. you cannot answer legitimately... it is you who should be removed from this thread, because you cannot see past your biased pointy little nose.
 
Devil505 said:
Look...Some of us actually want to get back on topic here. I'm through playing...
Click to expand...
Good -- that means you will respond to my post.

[You are] 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.
 
Goobieman said:
Good -- that means you will respond to my post.
Click to expand...

No I won't.

Anyone else want to discuss the topic .......of which I'm the OP & am trying to stop the derail attempts?
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
No I won't.
Click to expand...
Of course not -- because you know your positions are indefensible.

And, because you are not a serious debater, hoping only to find people who are dumb enough to fall for your 4th grade tricks.

You are 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.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Alright. EVERYONE needs to get back on topic and focusing on the actual topic, not each other. If you don't feel a poster is worth responding to then don't respond, stop derailing the thread by making posts just insulting and focusing on individuals and why you won't listen. If a poster isn't responding to you posting over, and over, and over again essentially going "I'm waiting" is not adding anything to the thread.

The next person to derail the topic or complain in thread about people going "off topic" is getting the boot.
 
Zyphlin said:
Moderator's Warning:
Alright. EVERYONE needs to get back on topic and focusing on the actual topic, not each other. If you don't feel a poster is worth responding to then don't respond, stop derailing the thread by making posts just insulting and focusing on individuals and why you won't listen. If a poster isn't responding to you posting over, and over, and over again essentially going "I'm waiting" is not adding anything to the thread.

The next person to derail the topic or complain in thread about people going "off topic" is getting the boot.
Click to expand...

Hey Zyphlin... it's not exactly like your post is on topic here either. ;)

...gets ready for the "boot".


Back on topic: It seems obvious that the amendment is clear and concise. No infringment upon individuals owning arms is acceptable. Who can dispute that?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Back on topic: It seems obvious that the amendment is clear and concise. No infringment upon individuals owning arms is acceptable. Who can dispute that?
Click to expand...
The obvious question is then: what constitutes an 'infringement'.

I'd argue that, generally:
-Preconditions to the exercise of the right that are not inherent to same
-Prior restraint, in relevant terms.
 
Goobieman said:
The obvious question is then: what constitutes an 'infringement'.

I'd argue that, generally:
-Preconditions to the exercise of the right that are not inherent to same
-Prior restraint, in relevant terms.
Click to expand...

Sounds good, basically anything that keeps a firearm out of the hands of a law abiding citizen (prior restraint) and no preconditions except for criminals and mentally handicapped etc?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Sounds good, basically anything that keeps a firearm out of the hands of a law abiding citizen (prior restraint) and no preconditions except for criminals and mentally handicapped etc?
Click to expand...
Pretty much.
 
Voidwar said:
During incarceration, OK, after release, unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Once a person has shown that they are untrustworthy, committing a rape, murder or other felony, then it is literally illogical and insane to allow them legal access to fire arms...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Once a person has shown that they are untrustworthy, committing a rape, murder or other felony, then it is literally illogical and insane to allow them legal access to fire arms...
Click to expand...

Then it would be literally illogical and insane to allow them out of jail.
 
Voidwar said:
Then it would be literally illogical and insane to allow them out of jail.
Click to expand...

If you can prove that jail rehibilitates criminals so that they are no longer a threat and prove that the revolving door issue is untrue, thus indicating that they should be able to have fire arms that simply make it even easier for them to rape and murder again, then your statement would merit any type of reasonable response, until then though, think whatever you like buddy...
 
Bodhisattva said:
If you can prove that jail rehibilitates criminals so that they are no longer a threat and prove that the revolving door issue is untrue, thus indicating that they should be able to have fire arms that simply make it even easier for them to rape and murder again, then your statement would merit any type of reasonable response, until then though, think whatever you like buddy...
Click to expand...

That was worded in a rather convoluted way that was a bit difficult to follow. Want to have another go at it?


IMHO, if you commit a crime so severe that you could never be trusted with arms (legally) again, ie rape, murder, armed robbery, home invasion, any felony where someone dies or nearly dies, that sort of thing....then you should never get out of jail, period. If we did that, we wouldn't need to be talking about gun control, because we'd have the thing we really need: criminal control.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
That was worded in a rather convoluted way that was a bit difficult to follow. Want to have another go at it?


IMHO, if you commit a crime so severe that you could never be trusted with arms (legally) again, ie rape, murder, armed robbery, home invasion, any felony where someone dies or nearly dies, that sort of thing....then you should never get out of jail, period. If we did that, we wouldn't need to be talking about gun control, because we'd have the thing we really need: criminal control.
Click to expand...

One problem with your thinking is that we simply do not have the space in our prison system to accommodate all those prisoners for life, so your plan is not possible in the real world.
 
Devil505 said:
One problem with your thinking is that we simply do not have the space in our prison system to accommodate all those prisoners for life, so your plan is not possible in the real world.
Click to expand...

So, because we don't have the space to hold all the people who break laws..

You're going to punish those who do not, by attempting to take their firearms away from them? :doh


I'm sorry, I have to go pick up my eyes.. they just rolled out of my head and onto the floor.
 
stevenb said:
I'm sorry, I have to go pick up my eyes.. they just rolled out of my head and onto the floor.
Click to expand...

Why bother....You don't SEE anything with them anyway!:lol:
(sorry.......to wide an opening for me to resist!):3oops:
 
Devil505 said:
Why bother....You don't SEE anything with them anyway!:lol:
(sorry.......to wide an opening for me to resist!):3oops:
Click to expand...

Sling the personal insults, instead of actually responding to my post.


Way to go, champ.
 
stevenb said:
Sling the personal insults, instead of actually responding to my post.


Way to go, champ.
Click to expand...

I apologized in that post but........You gave me such a wide opening....I just couldn't pass it up!!:lol:
(I'll give you a serious answer later when I have more time)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom