• 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!

Would You Resist Federal Confiscation?

Would You Resist Federal Confiscation of Arms?


  • Total voters
    65
It is understood the 2nd only covers man portable arms under a certain bore. Anything else is considered an "explosive or destructive device" and covered under a different set of state and Federal laws.

Ah, so there are classes of weapons that are covered, and classes that aren't.

I tend to agree with this as no civilian needs a 75mm or larger cannon etc. where I disagree is certain states banning fully automatic weapons or machine guns.

Okay, here you're basing the difference on "civilian need." So the next question is why do civilians need fully automatic rifles (let's just concede that all handguns are protected), let alone machine guns? Isn't it reasonable to say that civilians don't need machine guns any more than they need a 75mm cannon?
 
I think the amendment speaks to both the militia (group) and the people (individual), and therefore there is no limit on arms. I think it is understood the differences between personal arms and those of a group.

So you're saying there is no limit whatsoever?

And are you saying some rights in the 2nd are conditional on militia membership?
 
If you mean the group being law enforcement or military yes. Otherwise no. A random group does not need a fully armed tank etc.

Arms are arms and the 2nd amendment does not specify what arms and when you consider one of the intentions of the 2nd amendment was so that a armed population can take down the government. Then civilians should be able to get their hands on what ever the police and military can get assuming those people pay for those things themselves and have a place to store it.Seeing how there is a part at the end that shall not be infringed then the government has no business restricting,requiring licenses or registrations or any other pre-existing conditions to that right.
 
Last edited:
Ah, so there are classes of weapons that are covered, and classes that aren't.

By the 2nd Amendment yes and no. I said it is understood. Some disagree and feel it means any weapon system.

Okay, here you're basing the difference on "civilian need."

No. Not at all. It has nothing to do with need. It is a right.

So the next question is why do civilians need fully automatic rifles (let's just concede that all handguns are protected), let alone machine guns? Isn't it reasonable to say that civilians don't need machine guns any more than they need a 75mm cannon?

Because they are covered under a different law. I did not say they cannot get them. I said they don't need them, so they require different licensing. Rest assured they can get them and need has nothing to do with it as I said.
 
Arms are arms and the 2nd amendment does not specify and when you consider one of the intentions of the 2nd amendment was so that a armed population can take down the government. Then civilians should be able to get their hands on what ever the police and military can get assuming those people pay for those things themselves and have a place to store it.

That is one interpretation. Many disagree.
 
Seeing how there is a part at the end that shall not be infringed then the government has no business restricting,requiring licenses or registrations or any other pre-existing conditions to that right.

Well the government disagrees and has been winning since 1934. ;)
 
Well the government disagrees and has been winning since 1934. ;)

Just because the government disagrees does not mean they are correct. A right basically means something I do not have to ask the government permission to do nor does the government have any business trying to restrict that right.When we have to ask permission to do something then it is a privilege instead of a right and last I check the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right not a constitutional privilege.
 
Last edited:
Just because the government disagrees does not mean they are correct. A right basically means something I do not have to ask the government permission to do nor does the government have any business trying to restrict that right.When we have to ask permission to do something then it is a privilege instead of a right and last I check the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right not a constitutional privilege.

If they are not Constitutional, why has this not changed? In fact since 1986 civilians can't even get newly manufactured machine guns.

Now you can say it is unconstitutional all day, but the reality says no. Since 1934, it has not only never been overturned but added to in 86.
 
If they are not Constitutional, why has this not changed? In fact since 1986 civilians can't even get newly manufactured machine guns.

Now you can say it is unconstitutional all day, but the reality says no. Since 1934, it has not only never been overturned but added to in 86.

You have to admit that just because the supreme court doesn't overturn something doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional.

Remember the New London case?
Clearly there was no intent(in the Constitution) for towns to be able to take land to increase tax revenue.
 
You have to admit that just because the supreme court doesn't overturn something doesn't mean it isn't unconstitutional.

Remember the New London case?
Clearly there was no intent(in the Constitution) for towns to be able to take land to increase tax revenue.

I agree, but the reality of the situation is the reality. All the well meaning and screaming of it's unconstitutional has not worked. It will not work now.

Until we get a massive shake up of the status quo in Washington, this is not going to change.

So my statements remain true, like it or not.
 
Last edited:
If they are not Constitutional, why has this not changed? In fact since 1986 civilians can't even get newly manufactured machine guns.

Now you can say it is unconstitutional all day, but the reality says no. Since 1934, it has not only never been overturned but added to in 86.

How long did it take for the DC gun ban to be overturned since DC enacted their laws? Was it overnight,days, years or decades?
 
How long did it take for the DC gun ban to be overturned since DC enacted their laws? Was it overnight,days, years or decades?

1976 to presant.

1934 added to in 1986 and still going.

Do the math.
 
Last edited:
If they are not Constitutional, why has this not changed? In fact since 1986 civilians can't even get newly manufactured machine guns.

Now you can say it is unconstitutional all day, but the reality says no. Since 1934, it has not only never been overturned but added to in 86.

The government gets away with restricting our rights,... only because we let it go.

The governments efforts in the laws you refer to has consistantly resulted in stockpiling and hoarding of guns and ammo.

It would take me about 1 day to get a fully automatic rifle,... less than that if I want to ram a patrol car.

As for the right to keep and bear being infringed?

I'll let this lady splain it for you.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis"]YouTube- Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment![/ame]
 
The government gets away with restricting our rights,... only because we let it go.

The governments efforts in the laws you refer to has consistantly resulted in stockpiling and hoarding of guns and ammo.

It would take me about 1 day to get a fully automatic rifle,... less than that if I want to ram a patrol car.

As for the right to keep and bear being infringed?

I'll let this lady splain it for you.

YouTube- Suzanna Gratia Hupp explains meaning of 2nd Amendment!

Please spare me the drama. A woman defending herself with a pistol is not the same as these freaks who see owning a bazooka as a right. :roll:
 
The 1986 vote on the bill was very underhanded and sketchy.

They did it at night when a large part of the members weren't there and it was not recorded.

Like allot of other underhanded things they do and will continue to do.

Does not change the reality or truth of my statements.
 
Like allot of other underhanded things they do and will continue to do.

Does not change the reality or truth of my statements.

I understand the reality of it.

There are ways to get your hands on a full auto, without the class 3 license and without getting caught.
I don't have one but I know how to get it pretty reasonably.
 
I understand the reality of it.

Then why are you arguing with me?

There are ways to get your hands on a full auto, without the class 3 license and without getting caught.
I don't have one but I know how to get it pretty reasonably.

That's like saying I know where to buy crack to sell. So what? You know how to do something illegal. :)
 
1976 to presant.

So it took over 30 years before someone finally took it to the supreme court for DC's anti-2nd amendment laws to be struck down.


1934 added to in 1986 and still going.

Do the math.

So that just means no one has taken the issue to the supreme court at the right time.


That's like saying I know where to buy crack to sell. So what? You know how to do something illegal. :)



Crack is not a constitutional right, Arms are.So it moral and just to ignore a law that blatantly violates the constitution(that should a topic of another poll).
 
Last edited:
Please spare me the drama. A woman defending herself with a pistol is not the same as these freaks who see owning a bazooka as a right. :roll:

I don't need to give you drama,...

Just keep picking fights with the gun rights crowd. Keep calling us "freaks" because we might want a bazooka (never wanted one myself,... but then for squirrel?? I digress)

You're destined to get more 'drama' than you could ever imagine.
 
So it took over 30 years before someone finally took it to the supreme court for DC's anti-2nd amendment laws to be struck down.

So what?

So that just means no one has taken the issue to the supreme court at the right time.

Hmmmm at the right time? So it is subjective, I see. :lol:

Crack is not a constitutional right, Arms are.So it moral and just to ignore a law that blatantly violates the constitution(that should a topic of another poll).

Not true at all. Some would say it goes right to the ownership of property. Since I own my body and I am not infringing on someone else's rights by smoking crack, it is unconstitutional.

See this is the mistake zealots make. Our rights have been restricted since day one. As society changes and it's needs change, so do the laws, and in some cases rights.

Welcome to a reality check.

I mean lets look at the real picture here.

Without the threat of force to back up and protect perceived rights, do we really have them?
 
I don't need to give you drama,...

Just keep picking fights with the gun rights crowd. Keep calling us "freaks" because we might want a bazooka (never wanted one myself,... but then for squirrel?? I digress)

You're destined to get more 'drama' than you could ever imagine.

That was a well thought out and useful post.

Thanks.

PS I am one of the gun rights crowed. I do not follow them lock step though. I have no problem with licensing on certain destructive weapons and material. No reason I can think of for a civilian owning a stinger. That is unless they want to shoot down low flying aircraft????
 
Last edited:
If the constitution was amended in a lawful manner than I would not resist. That is our society's will, for better or worse.

If the Constitution were so amended in a lawful manner, then it's time for a new Constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom