• 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
Voidwar said:
You cried first, post 639.
Click to expand...
Doesn't change the fact, dumbass, that if your statement was not an ad hom, as you claimed, then neither is mine.
 
Goobieman said:
So, you have NOT, with something substantive, show the bolded statement to be true.
Click to expand...

So you ran away from my content and my pertinent questions, for pages and pages, spinning falsehoods about the content, and now the onus is on me to respond to your latest query ? ? ? Oh I don't think so runner awayer.

Once you go back and address my content and questions, I might do you the return courtesy of addressing your most recent posting.
 
Voidwar said:
So you ran away from my content and my pertinent questions, for pages and pages, spinning falsehoods about the content, and now the onus is on me to respond to your latest query ? ? ? Oh I don't think so runner awayer.

Once you go back and address my content and questions, I might do you the return courtesy of addressing your most recent posting.
Click to expand...
Your argument necessarily fails, as is it unsupported by anything substantive.

The only thing that can -ever- change that is for you to show, with something substantive, that the bolded statement is true.
 
stevenb said:
So... because there are "more people in an area" they should be disarmed?
Click to expand...

No one should be disarmed, that would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment
and I believe everyone should have something to protect themselves with. More restrictions could be considered for safety though. For example - after looking at factors like population and crime rate, they may decide it wouldn't be a great idea for people to have automatic rifles in one place or another.
 
Phantom said:
No one should be disarmed, that would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment
and I believe everyone should have something to protect themselves with. More restrictions could be considered for safety though. For example - after looking at factors like population and crime rate, they may decide it wouldn't be a great idea for people to have automatic rifles in one place or another.
Click to expand...
Simple possession of a firearm - regardless of type - doesnt endanger anyone.
 
Goobieman said:
Your argument necessarily fails, as is it unsupported by anything substantive.
Click to expand...

YOU fail. To understand the very nature of a normative discussion.
 
repeter said:
Simple possesion of a firearm by a clinically insane person does endanger people.
Click to expand...

Even if we assume this is necessarily true, what's your point?
 
repeter said:
Simple possesion of a firearm by a clinically insane person does endanger people.
Click to expand...

Possession of a pencil by a clinically insane person can endanger people too.
 
repeter said:
That's besides the point.
Click to expand...

how so?

You said that guns in the hands of a dangerous individual (crazies, felons, etc.) endanger folks.

Well, the simple fact is that, guns aside, it is the crazies & felons THEMSELVES that actually endanger people, not the guns.

Guns may be used for protection or in a crime. Criminalizing (or over restricting) them only closes the former option--that's not a good thing. As you said: "Simple possesion of a firearm by a clinically insane person does endanger people." I say, all the more reason that I should be able to carry one if I so choose-- to protect myself (which is my right--and yours).
 
Last edited:
repeter said:
That's besides the point.
Click to expand...

Not entirely...

A man who knows what he is doing can kill you with a pencil.

However, lets address the issue of the "clinically insane" and guns.

The devil is in the details, as usual.

Who defines what is clinically insane?

As my Psyche 101 Prof was fond of saying, "the difference between you and the guy in the crazy house is a question of degree."

Almost everyone has some symptoms of some neurosis, anxiety, phobia, stress disorder, etc. There are levels: some are self-manageable; some of treatable with therapy; some require meds to function; some are nonfunctional or dangerous and are institutionalized.

Which categories should be denied the use of arms?

The institutionalized of course...but what if later they are pronounced "cured" and released?

What about those who take meds for schizophrenia? I've known some. On meds and off-meds, they are different people...but a lot of them are not good about staying on their meds.

Some people are on meds for something, like anxiety or PTSD, but aren't necessarily DANGEROUS even if they are off their meds. What about them? Who decides?

Right NOW, millions of vets are potentially subject to losing their 2A rights due to having PTSD.... they are not necessarily DANGEROUS but could have their rights stripped just because.

Where do we draw the line?

This (insanity argument) is another issue where caution is indicated. The slippery slope is not a fallacy if someone is pushing an agenda.
 
other said:
how so?

You said that guns in the hands of a dangerous individual (crazies, felons, etc.) endanger folks.

Well, the simple fact is that, guns aside, it is the crazies & felons THEMSELVES that actually endanger people, not the guns.

Guns may be used for protection or in a crime. Criminalizing (or over restricting) them only closes the former option--that's not a good thing. As you said: "Simple possesion of a firearm by a clinically insane person does endanger people." I say, all the more reason that I should be able to carry one if I so choose-- to protect myself (which is my right--and yours).
Click to expand...

What I'm arguing is that the gun makes it a whole lot easier for a person who is crazy to kill you. Yeah, a guy with a pencil can kill you, but he'll most likely have to work much harder then he would have to with a gun.
 
Goshin said:
Not entirely...

A man who knows what he is doing can kill you with a pencil.

However, lets address the issue of the "clinically insane" and guns.

The devil is in the details, as usual.

Who defines what is clinically insane?

As my Psyche 101 Prof was fond of saying, "the difference between you and the guy in the crazy house is a question of degree."

Almost everyone has some symptoms of some neurosis, anxiety, phobia, stress disorder, etc. There are levels: some are self-manageable; some of treatable with therapy; some require meds to function; some are nonfunctional or dangerous and are institutionalized.

Which categories should be denied the use of arms?

The institutionalized of course...but what if later they are pronounced "cured" and released?

What about those who take meds for schizophrenia? I've known some. On meds and off-meds, they are different people...but a lot of them are not good about staying on their meds.

Some people are on meds for something, like anxiety or PTSD, but aren't necessarily DANGEROUS even if they are off their meds. What about them? Who decides?

Right NOW, millions of vets are potentially subject to losing their 2A rights due to having PTSD.... they are not necessarily DANGEROUS but could have their rights stripped just because.

Where do we draw the line?

This (insanity argument) is another issue where caution is indicated. The slippery slope is not a fallacy if someone is pushing an agenda.
Click to expand...

Okay, quite honestly, I don't know how to specifically define a clinically insane person. When I refer to a clinically insane person, I'm talking about Virginia Tech, if that is any indicator.

For the most part, consider this what I'm using as a definition: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity"]Insanity[/ame]
 
repeter said:
Okay, quite honestly, I don't know how to specifically define a clinically insane person. When I refer to a clinically insane person, I'm talking about Virginia Tech, if that is any indicator.

For the most part, consider this what I'm using as a definition: Insanity
Click to expand...

As long as we are defining someone as "too insane to exercise the right to bear arms" as someone who is demonstrably DANGEROUS, I'm okay with that.

We just have to be aware that there are those who oppose gun rights who'd like to take that football and run with it, and ban millions or tens of millions of people from arms whose only fault is, they take mild medications for anxiety attacks or came home from war with a little PTSD.
 
Goshin said:
As long as we are defining someone as "too insane to exercise the right to bear arms" as someone who is demonstrably DANGEROUS, I'm okay with that.

We just have to be aware that there are those who oppose gun rights who'd like to take that football and run with it, and ban millions or tens of millions of people from arms whose only fault is, they take mild medications for anxiety attacks or came home from war with a little PTSD.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not trying to take it that far, just so the actual crazy people can't legally get guns and shoot up schools.
 
repeter said:
What I'm arguing is that the gun makes it a whole lot easier for a person who is crazy to kill you. Yeah, a guy with a pencil can kill you, but he'll most likely have to work much harder then he would have to with a gun.
Click to expand...

So what do you think should be done about this?

Restrict everyone else's ability to defend themselves against a madman or a criminal with a gun? If so, you aren't really making him work harder to kill you, you're making it harder for people to defend themselves.
 
other said:
So what do you think should be done about this?

Restrict everyone else's ability to defend themselves against a madman or a criminal with a gun? If so, you aren't really making him work harder to kill you, you're making it harder for people to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

No, what I want is to restrict his ability to kill someone, in the form of making it harder for him to get a gun. As for everyone else, they can keep their guns.
 
repeter said:
No, what I want is to restrict his ability to kill someone, in the form of making it harder for him to get a gun. As for everyone else, they can keep their guns.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you cannot do that without restricting the rights of those who have the right to purchase firearms.

it's like.. saying...

"I want to make it so that a fat kid cannot get a soda." -- So you ban soda in schools.

What does the kid do? He goes to the nearest convenience store and gets some soda to bring to school anyway.

So... the next logical step in your guy's opinion (gun grabbers / soda grabbers haha)... is to ban convenience stores from selling specific types of soda / beverages.

Now you're not just restricting the rights of the fat kid.. you're restricting them unconstitutionally for everyone else too.

Much like Ikari has said over and over and over and over in this thread.

We live in a free country, it's not supposed to be absolutely safe, that's the cost of living in a free country.
 
Voidwar said:
YOU fail. To understand the very nature of a normative discussion.
Click to expand...
On the contrary -- I understand the nature, perfectly well.

-Your- argument necessarily fails, as is it unsupported by anything substantive.

The only thing that can -ever- change that is for you to show, with something substantive, that the bolded statement is true.
 
repeter said:
Simple possesion of a firearm by a clinically insane person does endanger people.
Click to expand...
My comment wasnt directed to or at clinically insane people, it was, given the context of the post I responsed to, directed toward the law-abiding citizenry in general.
 
repeter said:
What I'm arguing is that the gun makes it a whole lot easier for a person who is crazy to kill you. Yeah, a guy with a pencil can kill you, but he'll most likely have to work much harder then he would have to with a gun.
Click to expand...
That doesnt change the fact that simple possession -- by a person who has the right to keep and bear arms -- doesn't endanger anyone.
 
Goobieman said:
My comment wasnt directed to or at clinically insane people, it was, given the context of the post I responsed to, directed toward the law-abiding citizenry in general.
Click to expand...

Who doesn't need to be restricted from gun use and ownership. The clinically insane person would be restricted from gun ownership and usage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom