• 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!

What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?

What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights?

  • A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 1st amendment rights

    Votes: 5 15.6%

  • A license/permit required to exercise certain or all 2nd amendment rights

    Votes: 18 56.3%

  • Registration requirement of some or all of your books and other 1st amendment related things

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • Registration requirement of some or all of your firearms and other weapons.

    Votes: 26 81.3%

  • A ban on certain books,religions, what the press can report and etc.

    Votes: 3 9.4%

  • A ban on certain weapons.

    Votes: 19 59.4%

  • A ban on certain individuals from exercising 1st amendment rights

    Votes: 3 9.4%

  • A ban on certain individuals form exercising 2nd amendment rights

    Votes: 16 50.0%

  • A total ban on 1st amendment rights

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • A total ban on 2nd amendment rights

    Votes: 3 9.4%
  • Total voters
    32
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Pal said:
:roll:

In other words you can't produce the evidence to back up your claims? I may have joined recently, but at least I don't make vague references to studies and refuse to provide a single link.
Click to expand...

Nope,I have read the studies dozens of times. Some were suppressed by the Clinton administration as was the study Reno conducted of police about the awb-when 88% of the police were opposed to the clinton gun ban that study was 86'd rather quickly. Having been counsel to a major NRA club, a class two manufacturer and an attorney involved on the legal issues involving gun ownerships I read thousands of reports, law review articles. Do you have any proof of what I am saying is wrong. I am a court certified expert on the subject

and frankly I couldn't care less if you believe me or not. If you can disprove what I say feel free to do it but I highly suspect you cannot come close.

Consider what I say expert opinion-as I said feel free to find someone who has an emperical disagreement with what I said when I stated cops are more likely to miss bad guys than non LEO civilians and more likely to hit innocent people

Here is one such citation to what I have said

In confrontational shootings, studies show police hit their targets between 13 percent and 25 percent of the time. Of the incidents analyzed in this study, civilians hit their targets 84 percent of the time. This comparison does not account for the number of shots fired, only hits or misses. Nevertheless, it gives us a statistical basis to refute claims that only police should have firearms or that civilian shooters are largely ineffective in emergencies

Who Is The Armed Citizen? :The Armed Citizen
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

TurtleDude said:
Nope,I have read the studies dozens of times. Some were suppressed by the Clinton administration as was the study Reno conducted of police about the awb-when 88% of the police were opposed to the clinton gun ban that study was 86'd rather quickly. Having been counsel to a major NRA club, a class two manufacturer and an attorney involved on the legal issues involving gun ownerships I read thousands of reports, law review articles. Do you have any proof of what I am saying is wrong. I am a court certified expert on the subject

and frankly I couldn't care less if you believe me or not. If you can disprove what I say feel free to do it but I highly suspect you cannot come close.
Click to expand...

This ridiculous response makes it pretty clear you did not win any debate contests. You would be laughed out of one with this stuff. You're committing the lamest of logical fallacies. Pathetic.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

The only two things I can see as reasonable for firearms would be an inexpensive federal license for full automatics, no registration of those arms and psych/safety testing, and that violent felony offenders must be cleared legally to own firearms. On speech, nothing is banned which poses no dangers to the public, we can fight out those details individually.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The word "regulated" actually appears in the text of the second amendment, but yet the gun freaks and gun makers and sellers say it is unconstitutional to "regulate" anything when it comes to guns. Once more, I believe a few on the fringe are leading the country around by the nose.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

jacksbrat said:
The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The word "regulated" actually appears in the text of the second amendment, but yet the gun freaks and gun makers and sellers say it is unconstitutional to "regulate" anything when it comes to guns. Once more, I believe a few on the fringe are leading the country around by the nose.
Click to expand...
"Regulated" refers to militia and most probably refers to making the militia well ordered.

The Constitution is not a word search. Context matters.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

jacksbrat said:
The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The word "regulated" actually appears in the text of the second amendment, but yet the gun freaks and gun makers and sellers say it is unconstitutional to "regulate" anything when it comes to guns. Once more, I believe a few on the fringe are leading the country around by the nose.
Click to expand...

Let's see if I understand your "thinking".

since the constitution's main body has no evidence of the federal government being delegated the power to regulate firearms, you find that the term well regulated militia is that delegation

In other words, you FEEL that one of the amendments is where the founders decided to transfer inalienable rights of the people and the several states to the federal government

do you realize how incredibly stupid that is? but that is clearly what you are saying

FDR even realized that so he used the commerce clause to "find" such powers

equally dishonest
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

misterman said:
This ridiculous response makes it pretty clear you did not win any debate contests. You would be laughed out of one with this stuff. You're committing the lamest of logical fallacies. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

You are psychobabbling again. You appear to be nothing more than a troll
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

TurtleDude said:
You are psychobabbling again. You appear to be nothing more than a troll
Click to expand...

Bing! Give that man a cigar, he figured it out. :mrgreen:
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

I shall ignore it until it matures or gains wisdom:mrgreen:
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Remember Waco Texas? I heard those nuts order all sorts of military weapons things like a bazuka which UPS delivered.

Should we make a difference between:
collecting historical rifels and guns
hunting weapons
guns for self protection

weapons for crime and terrorist activity. Here resonalbe conservatives should be against this last issue, please.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

bennyhill said:
Remember Waco Texas? I heard those nuts order all sorts of military weapons things like a bazuka which UPS delivered.

Should we make a difference between:
collecting historical rifels and guns
hunting weapons
guns for self protection

weapons for crime and terrorist activity. Here resonalbe conservatives should be against this last issue, please.
Click to expand...

The distinction is already made. You can't own a "bazuka" (its bazooka, or in modern terms infantry missle launcher) legally without at least a special Class III license, which requires extensive background checks, storage requirements, and other hoops to jump through. Very very few people legally own such things.

Oddly enough those who are willing to break the law anyway rarely have a problem getting what they want, as long as they have the cash. Laws restricting the law-abiding have little or no effect on the habitual criminal.

There was also far more to Waco than you are probably aware. The Feds could have picked up the leader of the Branch Davidians any time they wanted, PEACEFULLY. He was known to go into town alone regularly; he had previously responded to local law enforcement requests to come in for an interview by obeying the request and coming in willingly. There was no need for the dramatic and violent raid that sparked the initial gunfight and tragic ending, other than an attempt by certain agencies to intimidate other similar groups. Didn't work out so well for them; they got their arses kicked in the first engagement, and got a black eye with the public in the final tragedy that still hasn't faded.
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

bennyhill said:
Remember Waco Texas? I heard those nuts order all sorts of military weapons things like a bazuka which UPS delivered.

Should we make a difference between:
collecting historical rifels and guns
hunting weapons
guns for self protection

weapons for crime and terrorist activity. Here resonalbe conservatives should be against this last issue, please.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many firearms you have ever purchased. In addition to me buying a rather large amount over the last 30 years, I used to represent major league gun dealers, and one Title II maker (Machine Guns). So I have seen probably 8,000 or more transactions involving firearms and I have handled far more than that given I grew up in a home where my father hunted all over the world and had been a top level collegiate rifle competitor and skeet champion


And try as I might, none of the weapons I have seen have labels on them or the containers they are shipped in saying "For Collection only" or

WARNING THIS FIREARM IS TO BE USED FOR JIHAD

For years in the USA, the most popular police weapon was a Smith and Wesson 38 revolver. Guess what was one of the most popular weapons used by criminals? Yep, a SW 38 revolver

Right now the Glock is the most popular police weapon and yep, lots of gang-bangers are packing glocks
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Permits need to be issued for things like mass protests or parades on public property, so as to ensure the police authorities can be adequately prepared to streamline daily commerce. Courts and congresses should have the ability to penalize 'obvious' abuses of the right (aka, Phelps family), by which I mean, each expression of free speech by its nature exhibits a level of decorum appropriate to its kind and breaches in this decorum to the point of undermining its claim to being that variety of expression can be construed as a misrepresentation of their actual agenda, which is a form of slander.

Assault weapons (including military brand sharpshooters) should require psychological testing and licensing and be subject to temporary bans under the advisement of local police authorities.
 
Last edited:
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

There are already reasonable infringements on your 1st amendment rights. Try screaming fire in a theater, try speaking untruths about a person, try saying you want to kill somebody etc. You will get sued, fined and a few knocks on your door. This poll is a false dichotomy.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

bennyhill said:
Remember Waco Texas? I heard those nuts order all sorts of military weapons things like a bazuka which UPS delivered.

Should we make a difference between:
collecting historical rifels and guns
hunting weapons
guns for self protection

weapons for crime and terrorist activity. Here resonalbe conservatives should be against this last issue, please.
Click to expand...
Just goes to show that gun control is fueled largely by gross ignorance.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Hatuey said:
There are already reasonable infringements on your 1st amendment rights. Try screaming fire in a theater, try speaking untruths about a person, try saying you want to kill somebody etc. You will get sued, fined and a few knocks on your door. This poll is a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

its already illegal to discharge a real assault weapon in a crowded theater except under really narrow circumstances


this analogy is putrid because gun bans attack possession while restrictions on speech involve USE
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Coronado said:
"Regulated" refers to militia and most probably refers to making the militia well ordered.

The Constitution is not a word search. Context matters.
Click to expand...

You're right. Neither is it a pick and choose what you like,either. It says this:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The words "regulated militia" is not part of another amendment, or even in another sentence in this amendment, it's part of the same line where you pick out your "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as if that's the only thing it says. If the writers wanted the "a well regulated militia" par ignored, why did they bother putting it in there? Seems to me it's the subject of the amendment. You can't just ignore it.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Hatuey said:
There are already reasonable infringements on your 1st amendment rights. Try screaming fire in a theater, try speaking untruths about a person, try saying you want to kill somebody etc.
Click to expand...

A second amendment equivalent would be shooting people in a theater, firing a weapon in a grocery or maliciously killing someone.


You will get sued, fined and a few knocks on your door.
Click to expand...

If you fire a weapon into a movie theater,murder someone, or just randomly discharge your weapon in certain places you will get fined, go to jail/prison or sentenced to community service and or sued.

This poll is a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

No it is not.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

jacksbrat said:
You're right. Neither is it a pick and choose what you like,either. It says this:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The words "regulated militia" is not part of another amendment, or even in another sentence in this amendment, it's part of the same line where you pick out your "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as if that's the only thing it says. If the writers wanted the "a well regulated militia" par ignored, why did they bother putting it in there? Seems to me it's the subject of the amendment. You can't just ignore it.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, if you parse the sentence correctly it is much the same as two sentences.

1. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

THEREFORE (notice the semicolon?)

2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Scholars have pointed out that in the mode of speech of the time the Constitution was written, "well-regulated" in military terms meant "Ready for battle" not "thoroughly controlled by many restictions".

Let's consider the Founder's words...


George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
Click to expand...

And lest we forget, attempting to construe the language of the 2A against itself is also contrary to the Founders' words...

FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth
of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the
Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages
who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean
to be masters." (Source still being sought)

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)
Click to expand...
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Morality Games said:
Permits need to be issued for things like mass protests or parades on public property, so as to ensure the police authorities can be adequately prepared to streamline daily commerce. Courts and congresses should have the ability to penalize 'obvious' abuses of the right (aka, Phelps family), by which I mean, each expression of free speech by its nature exhibits a level of decorum appropriate to its kind and breaches in this decorum to the point of undermining its claim to being that variety of expression can be construed as a misrepresentation of their actual agenda, which is a form of slander.

Assault weapons (including military brand sharpshooters) should require psychological testing and licensing and be subject to temporary bans under the advisement of local police authorities.
Click to expand...



what is a military brand sharpshooter and why are you so enamored with the police

that sort of thinking is why many of us are well armed
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

There are NO REASONABLE INFRINGMENTS of ANY Constitutionally protected rights.

The left had damn well better get this point through their heads.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Goshin said:
On the contrary, if you parse the sentence correctly it is much the same as two sentences.

1. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

THEREFORE (notice the semicolon?)

2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And lest we forget, attempting to construe the language of the 2A against itself is also contrary to the Founders' words...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see a semicolon, I see a coma. It's plain that they were talking about a civilian military. One organized to fight to defend the country, not the government. That was before we had an army. I wonder just who is "construing" the language of the 2A?
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

jacksbrat said:
Sorry, I don't see a semicolon, I see a coma. It's plain that they were talking about a civilian military. One organized to fight to defend the country, not the government. That was before we had an army. I wonder just who is "construing" the language of the 2A?
Click to expand...

well almost every legal scholar-from Liberals such as van Alstyne, Amar and Levinson to libertarians like Koppel to conservatives such as Cates and Volokh all support the individual right interpretation.

the ones that don't-paid hacks of the Handgun Control Conspiracy against civil rights
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

jacksbrat said:
Sorry, I don't see a semicolon, I see a coma. It's plain that they were talking about a civilian military. One organized to fight to defend the country, not the government. That was before we had an army. I wonder just who is "construing" the language of the 2A?
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read the founder's quotes? They make things very clear.
 
Re: What are reasonable restrictions/infringements on 1st and second amendment rights

Vader said:
There are NO REASONABLE INFRINGMENTS of ANY Constitutionally protected rights.

The left had damn well better get this point through their heads.
Click to expand...

You know, we should go watch a movie together sometime. I might feel like yelling, "fire" and if you happen to die in a stampede...well, I was inside my 1st amendment rights ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom