• 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!

2nd amendment rights.

Are restrictions on the purchase/sale of firearms constitutional?


  • Total voters
    61
Wrong.....


Visual aid, imminent:




It amazes me how the anti-2nd amendment loons try to claim that you to be part of a militia because there is a comma between the militia part and the people part. I do not think these same anti-2nd amendment loons would say that free speech,right to petition the government for grievances or to peacefully assemble only applies to people who are a member of both a church and press.
 
It amazes me how the anti-2nd amendment loons try to claim that you to be part of a militia because there is a comma between the militia part and the people part. I do not think these same anti-2nd amendment loons would say that free speech,right to petition the government for grievances or to peacefully assemble only applies to people who are a member of both a church and press.

Im all for the 2nd amendment, I have CWL myself and do carry on occasions. I did however have to do a background check and register etc etc and Im fine with that. I also agree its the RIGHT thing to do.

I can see the argument saying that any restrictions is unconstitutional. Be to a great extent I see the argument that it would be stupid, irresponsible and down right asinine to allow the purchase of any and all weapons to any and all people That would simply endanger the people.
 
Im all for the 2nd amendment, I have CWL myself and do carry on occasions. I did however have to do a background check and register etc etc and Im fine with that. I also agree its the RIGHT thing to do.

If you think a back ground check is okay then how does it stop a criminal from illegally purchasing a firearm or simply using a zip gun? How many crimes have fire arm registrations helped prevent or solve? If you support anti-2nd amendment laws then you can't call yourself a 2nd amendment proponent.


I can see the argument saying that any restrictions is unconstitutional. Be to a great extent I see the argument that it would be stupid, irresponsible and down right asinine to allow the purchase of any and all weapons to any and all people That would simply endanger the people.

The same could be said for allowing the government to regulate what firearm you can buy and who can buy. One of the main reasons for the 2nd amendment is so that the people can have the ability to remove a tyrannical government. So the government has no business dictating what the citizens can or can not buy.
 
Last edited:
If you think a back ground check is okay then how does it stop a criminal from illegally purchasing a firearm or simply using a zip gun? How many crimes have fire arm registrations helped prevent or solve? If you support anti-2nd amendment laws then you can't call yourself a 2nd amendment proponent.




The same could be said for allowing the government to regulate what firearm you can buy and who can buy. One of the main reasons for the 2nd amendment is so that the people can have the ability to remove a tyrannical government. So the government has no business dictating what the citizens can or can not buy.

you like putting words in peoples mouths dont you LOL
who said background checks stop criminals from getting guns? oh thats right not me thats just something you said to try and make a point nobody was arguing against lol

also the same COULD be said but as long as its regulated within reason Im totally fine with it

guess Ill be dramatic to and exaggerate.
I dont want nutballs to have "easier" access to fully automatic guns with explosive rounds lol

"i" am a law abiding citizen so I like other law abiding citzens have no problem getting arms so like I said Im fine with the regulations. :)
 
Going by what is written, it says nothing about obtaining arms, just keeping and bearing them, so to make it harder to obtain arms, strictly by what is written, is not against the constitution.

Yeah right, you got a single shred of anything to back that up? BTW, we don't only go by what is written, we consider the original intent of the legislators.
 
you like putting words in peoples mouths dont you LOL
who said background checks stop criminals from getting guns? oh thats right not me thats just something you said to try and make a point nobody was arguing against lol

Then why support such unconstitutional things as background checks and registrations? You must think those things work if you think "its the RIGHT thing to do".


also the same COULD be said but as long as its regulated within reason Im totally fine with it

Regulated within reason is a subjective term. One man's reasonable regulation could actually be infringement.

guess Ill be dramatic to and exaggerate.
I dont want nutballs to have "easier" access to fully automatic guns with explosive rounds lol.
"i" am a law abiding citizen so I like other law abiding citzens have no problem getting arms so like I said Im fine with the regulations. :)


A nutball is going to get his hands on those things regardless of what the law says. The anti-2nd amendment laws are not for the criminals, it is an attempt to disarm or severally make sure the population is inadequately armed.
 
Then why support such unconstitutional things as background checks and registrations? You must think those things work if you think "its the RIGHT thing to do".

in certain cases they do work and thats a fact, and it is the right thing to do 100%
in certain cases they dont work but that won't make me abandon all logic and get rid of them lol

sometimes police, helmets, birthcontrol, seatbeats, streetlights etc etc etc dont work so lets get rid of them, no thanks thats dumb




Regulated within reason is a subjective term. One man's reasonable regulation could actually be infringement.[/QUOTE]
I agree it is subjective still no logical reason to do nothing, one mans reasonable thoughts could be to shoot your house up with a maching-gun shot gun (yes they do make them and they are awesome) do you not want to infringe on that either.

listen the bottom line is you are being dramatic for the sake of nothing but to be dramatic. To do nothing is clearly worse.

the regulation is up to us to decide




A nutball is going to get his hands on those things regardless of what the law says. The anti-2nd amendment laws are not for the criminals, it is an attempt to disarm or severally make sure the population is inadequately armed.

this maybe true but I dont want to make it easier for him LOL these laws do also stop some nutballs so id rather have them than not have them thats just common sense

also your opinion of what is anti-2nd amendment and their purpose is very blanket like and opinion.

id rather live with regulation then none, better and safer for me, my family, my kids, my friends and neighbors.

I can get guns and have guns so it seems the current regulation is just fine.

If you would like to debate an example of over regulation, like where a guy/girl couldnt get a gun and it caused them harm, we can. I very well may agree with you and why it was bad regulation in that case but I will never sign off on the reckless irresponsibility of NO regulation.
 
in certain cases they do work and thats a fact, and it is the right thing to do 100%
in certain cases they dont work but that won't make me abandon all logic and get rid of them lol

Then what evidence do have that back ground checks prevent criminals from getting guns? Any evidence that firearm registrations solve crimes?

sometimes police, helmets, birthcontrol, seatbeats, streetlights etc etc etc dont work so lets get rid of them, no thanks thats dumb
There is evidence those things work plus none of those things violate the constitution.



I agree it is subjective still no logical reason to do nothing, one mans reasonable thoughts could be to shoot your house up with a maching-gun shot gun (yes they do make them and they are awesome) do you not want to infringe on that either.

If that man can a automatic shotgun then what would stop everyone else from getting one? I do not think he would be stupid to shoot up my home if I and my neighbors have the same weapons.


the regulation is up to us to decide

No its not. Shall not infringe is written on the constitution.





also your opinion of what is anti-2nd amendment and their purpose is very blanket like and opinion.
When you support an infringement on a right that says no infringement then you are not pro-2nd amendment.
 
Sorry, but I don't want a convicted felon with an IQ of 80, or a schizophrenic with a history of violent behavior and not taking his meds having free and easy access to firearms. If I'm not mistaken, the NRA agrees with this position, also.

One can lose rights through inappropriate behavior. Commit a crime and it's easy to find out how quickly rights disappear. Even the right to vote, in some states.

Case in point, the gentleman in Florida who held the school board hostage. It never should have happened in the first place. He was sick and quit taking his meds. He was a felon, most likely because of his mental illness. He needed treatment. And he damn sure never should have had a firearm. Isn't that common sense?

But then I would also note; while some organizations spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their right to bear arms unconditionally, the beneficiaries of that mountain of money cuts funding for programs that would actually help people like this man, and the greater community at large. For a fraction of the cost.
 
Last edited:
Then what evidence do have that back ground checks prevent criminals from getting guns? Any evidence that firearm registrations solve crimes?
seriously? LMAO
can a felony get a gun legitimately? NO lol


There is evidence those things work plus none of those things violate the constitution.
and there is evidence that regulation works too lol
nor does the constitution have much to do with it with your prior argument, you just said implied they dont work lol





If that man can a automatic shotgun then what would stop everyone else from getting one? I do not think he would be stupid to shoot up my home if I and my neighbors have the same weapons.

really? why not because you say so? where that "proof" you so ask for this is nothing more than wishful thinking and you CLEALRY did not answer the question, the question was would you infringe on his thoughts




No its not. Shall not infringe is written on the constitution.
LMAO meaning what?
it can infact still up to us






When you support an infringement on a right that says no infringement then you are not pro-2nd amendment.
simply nothing more than your opinion
 
Case in point, the gentleman in Florida who held the school board hostage. It never should have happened in the first place. He was sick and quit taking his meds. He was a felon, most likely because of his mental illness. He needed treatment. And he damn sure never should have had a firearm. Isn't that common sense?

That's a very good case in point. Had those officials been allowed to carry on school grounds the assault could have been put to an end very early on.

Unless you're saying that the school board was composed of criminals with IQs of 80....I can't really argue with that.
 
That's a very good case in point. Had those officials been allowed to carry on school grounds the assault could have been put to an end very early on.

Unless you're saying that the school board was composed of criminals with IQs of 80....I can't really argue with that.

We were not discussing current gun law. We were discussing whether or not all people, under any circumstance, be allowed to purchase a fire arm, no questions asked. I find it odd that you seem to prefer killing the man over helping him in the first place, but that's a different subject.

Ultra-righties really still believe people actually want their guns and bibles? Really? Those wars are pretty well over, son, if they ever existed in the first place. This year, the NRA convention was a joke. There is no pending legislation, restricting guns doesn't appear in the Democratic platform anymore, and the Supreme Court has settled the issue (Dems tend to actually respect Supreme Court decisions, even when we don't like them). So this year, instead of addressing 2ed amendment issues, it was a good old fashioned ultra-conservative political barn-burner. The speaker list was fascinating. Look it up sometime. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the NRA has become another professional right organization bilking paranoid people.
 
seriously? LMAO
can a felony get a gun legitimately? NO lol
True.

But that might just mean it is easier for this hypothetical felon to acquire one.

Since the felon can't buy one legally, if the felon actually wants one, the only option is illegally - likely bypassing all the registration, wait times, etc., etc.....

Of course, the danger level would potentially be higher - but it's a convicted felon - likely that is less of an issue...
 
The very idea that gun laws make it hard for ex-felons, loonies and druggies to get guns is laughable, or would be if it weren't so serious.

I'm an ex-cop. I've known literally hundreds of felons. Most of them re-arm themselves upon their exit from jail or prison within 24 hours. They know who to talk to.

No gun laws are going to change that. Supporting the right of private citizens to have and carry arms will at least balance the equation.
 
seriously? LMAO
can a felony get a gun legitimately? NO lol

Why would a criminal be worried about getting a gun legitimately when they can acquire one through illegal means? Seeing how private individuals do not have to do background checks then I am pretty sure that is another way a convicted felon can acquire a firearm. Again these anti-2nd amendment laws are only intended to disarm the law abiding or to make sure they are inadequately armed. They are not for the criminals who do not obey the law in the first place.

How do firearm registrations prevent or help police solve crimes?


and there is evidence that regulation works too lol
nor does the constitution have much to do with it with your prior argument, you just said implied they dont work lol


Then please show me news stories of firearm registrations helping police solve crime or preventing crimes and please show me news stories of how a waiting period stopped someone from blowing out somebody's head instead of just going through illegal means to buy a gun or simply waiting a few days later.




really? why not because you say so? where that "proof" you so ask for this is nothing more than wishful thinking and you CLEALRY did not answer the question, the question was would you infringe on his thoughts

If that nut can legally acquire a automatic shotgun then what would stop the regular joe from getting one? Criminals are not stupid they prey on the unarmed.No criminal is going to be stupid enough to attack a neighborhood of armed honest citizens. This is why mass shootings happen in places like schools where no body is armed.

LMAO meaning what?

Basically what it means. The government can not infringe on the 2nd amendment period.

it can infact still up to us

No its not. That would require adding another amendment to the constitution to repeal or alter the 2nd amendment to allow for infringements.


simply nothing more than your opinion
It is not merely my opinion it is a fact. You can not be pro-2nd amendment when you support infringements. There is no way around that.
 
Yeah right, you got a single shred of anything to back that up? BTW, we don't only go by what is written, we consider the original intent of the legislators.

Who's we? Certainly not Scalia.

Originalism doesn't help gun rights, it hurts the pro-gun cause. Wise up, folks.
 
Gaw, not that again.


I'm going to go wash some clothes, or sort socks, or something...
 
Gaw, not that again.


I'm going to go wash some clothes, or sort socks, or something...

Guess you didn't read the article I linked to:roll:

Read the article. Even Randy Barnett agrees with me on this.

Gun rights are important, I don't like seeing them set back by an end-justifies-the-means jurisprudence.
 
Last edited:
Why would a criminal be worried about getting a gun legitimately when they can acquire one through illegal means? Seeing how private individuals do not have to do background checks then I am pretty sure that is another way a convicted felon can acquire a firearm. Again these anti-2nd amendment laws are only intended to disarm the law abiding or to make sure they are inadequately armed. They are not for the criminals who do not obey the law in the first place.

so let me get this straight, I am by no means claiming they cant get guns, I know they can, thats like saying you cant get weed cause its illegal, thats dumb. What im saying is it would make it easier for them to get em because they would have two options, thats a fact, you cant be this illogical???

how in the world do they disarm law abiding citizens? lol if you are a law abiding citizen you have no trouble getting a gun, it was very easy for me lol but keep making stuff up

How do firearm registrations prevent or help police solve crimes?
it doesnt help them SOLVE anything but it does make it harder for them to get guns because they only have one option, to illegally get them, now it still may be easy but TWO options makes it easier than ONE lmao





Then please show me news stories of firearm registrations helping police solve crime or preventing crimes and please show me news stories of how a waiting period stopped someone from blowing out somebody's head instead of just going through illegal means to buy a gun or simply waiting a few days later.
dude go find them are you seriously dumb enough to suggest this never happened, there was just a story this summer where I guy got rejected, used a fake name even or something cant rmember. The store owner called the cops and he was in fact planning on killing his wife, had stuff in his trunk to bury her. Google it, google gun store arrest or something dude LOL i dont need to waste my time proving facts because whether YOU believe them or not they dont change LMAO. It DOES help and have an impact period






If that nut can legally acquire a automatic shotgun then what would stop the regular joe from getting one? Criminals are not stupid they prey on the unarmed.No criminal is going to be stupid enough to attack a neighborhood of armed honest citizens. This is why mass shootings happen in places like schools where no body is armed.

do you make this stuff up as you go? who said something would stop a regular joe from getting them? they can already so?
criminals are criminals for a reason, yes they pick weaker prey but they are going to do bad regardless so Im not going to HELP them do bad.

where is it that all these fantasy are? I can get a gun right now? where are all these restrictions stopping me "law abiding citizen" from getting a gun? thats right its you being dramatic LMAO


Basically what it means. The government can not infringe on the 2nd amendment period.

and its only your opinion and how YOU read the amendment. its still their job to do whats right and protect us, I have no trouble getting guns what so ever so my 2nd amendment rights are just fine LMAO



No its not. That would require adding another amendment to the constitution to repeal or alter the 2nd amendment to allow for infringements.
again YOUR opinion and amendments can be added or law clarified added too, subtracted from etc etc



It is not merely my opinion it is a fact. You can not be pro-2nd amendment when you support infringements. There is no way around that.
its not even CLOSE to a fact it is strictly your opinion and nothing more, rant and rave all you want lamo, its you opinion today and it will still be your opinion tomorrow :)

Im am pro 2nd amendment YOU cant change that nor is it YOUR decision LMAO
I want the right to bear arms, I have guns, got them easy, have a CWL am a member of the NRA etc
 
I am for 2nd amendment gun rights, but I like them to be regulated like cars.

If it's easier to get a license for a car than it is to get a gun, then there's something wrong. It should be made sure that people know comprehensive gun safety specific to the weapon they want to purchase, either through a test, or if they need it, an educational course, followed by a test. Tests should both be in theory and in practice.

Also, it should be harder to get more dangerous weapons. For example, getting an assault rifle shouldn't be as easy as getting a low caliber hunting rifle for example, but I am in support of assault rifles being available, as long as they have stringent protections on who can get them. I draw the line about there. No RPGs, no nuclear weapons :p

Peace.

5.56mm isn't really that big a deal.

Just say'n.
 
If you want to go by a strict reading, it reads "arms" not guns. Technically if a you have a big stick, you are armed.

This is why strict readings can be somewhat useless in constitutional interpretation.

Er, I'm afraid on this account you're wrong -- as a former member of the military, and a bit of a history buff to boot, I can tell you that then and now, "arms" means guns held by a person. Firearms. It means nothing else. "Guns", as a military term, means field-guns, artillery, or ship-mounted cannon.

So, a pistol is an arm, and not a gun, and an arm is not a stick, but rather a rifle.
 
We were not discussing current gun law. We were discussing whether or not all people, under any circumstance, be allowed to purchase a fire arm, no questions asked.

:confused: ...That's a rather vague and ambiguous trap you set there.....

Of course questions should be asked, and those question are limited to:
Are you a citizen; Have you ever been found guilty of a violent felony, domestic violence, or child abuse?

No registration. No permits. Yes you can carry concealed or open absolutely anywhere except hospitals and government buildings.

I find it odd that you seem to prefer killing the man over helping him in the first place, but that's a different subject.

Sure, let's say I'm in the room when this guy walks in with a gun. I just whip out my time machine and travel back to when his mommy didn't hold him enough, because obviously EVERYONE's hobby is going back in time and fixing everyone else.

I suppose you'll require background checks on time machines next?

Ultra-righties really still believe people actually want their guns and bibles?

Yes, I'm one such person who wants my firearm and bible. You don't want yours? How much are you selling it for?

Really? Those wars are pretty well over, son, if they ever existed in the first place.

OK dad :peace

This year, the NRA convention was a joke. There is no pending legislation, restricting guns doesn't appear in the Democratic platform anymore, and the Supreme Court has settled the issue (Dems tend to actually respect Supreme Court decisions, even when we don't like them). So this year, instead of addressing 2ed amendment issues, it was a good old fashioned ultra-conservative political barn-burner. The speaker list was fascinating. Look it up sometime. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the NRA has become another professional right organization bilking paranoid people.

So in other words, politics same as usual.
 
Er, I'm afraid on this account you're wrong -- as a former member of the military, and a bit of a history buff to boot, I can tell you that then and now, "arms" means guns held by a person. Firearms. It means nothing else. "Guns", as a military term, means field-guns, artillery, or ship-mounted cannon.

So, a pistol is an arm, and not a gun, and an arm is not a stick, but rather a rifle.



It is with the deepest astonishment that I find myself in agreement with Monseiur Marteau. :shock:
 
I'm way in favor of an armed populace. One of the main reasons for protecting the rights of people to have weapons is so that, if needed, we can overthrow the government. Putting all the weapons in the hands of military defeats this purpose. In practical terms, there's not much reason to restrict access to weapons. Availability of weapons is hardly the main factor in violent crime, and were we to solve the other issues that cause it, the weapons would not matter.

I do think SOME restrictions are reasonable. Insane people probably shouldn't have access to dangerous firearms. I like the idea of a waiting period, to ensure that a weapon is purchased for longterm use, rather than based on a violent rage. But that simply makes it take a little longer to acquire a weapon. It does not prohibit the purchase of one.

So yeah, generally support gun ownership. It's a good idea.
 
you like putting words in peoples mouths dont you LOL
who said background checks stop criminals from getting guns? oh thats right not me thats just something you said to try and make a point nobody was arguing against lol

also the same COULD be said but as long as its regulated within reason Im totally fine with it

guess Ill be dramatic to and exaggerate.
I dont want nutballs to have "easier" access to fully automatic guns with explosive rounds lol

"i" am a law abiding citizen so I like other law abiding citzens have no problem getting arms so like I said Im fine with the regulations. :)

1) it is illegal for a convicted felon or someone engaged in such activity to possess any firearm. Fully automatic or single shot.

2) why should it be illegal for people with no records or other disqualifying features to buy Automatic weapons made after May 19, 1986

3) those who buy drugs or sell drugs illegally easily buy and sell illegal arms on the black market

4) every year the federal and local governments lose thousands of automatic weapons. Every year there are millions of AK type rifles, Swedish K (Carl Gustaf) submachine guns and other "obsolete" weapons of war on the world markets. During WWII, sten guns were made for less than 3 Pounds sterling per copy. anyone with a bridgeport lathe and HS metal shop can make a USA "M3" greasegun".

in other words, machine guns are easy to obtain if you don't mind breaking the federal and state laws. But Honest americans cannot buy the same rifles our tax dollars supply national guard units and big police departments with. That is outrageous
 
Back
Top Bottom