• 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!

Liberals: Do You Really Want The Police To Be The Only Ones With Guns?

CivicED said:
No. We just want the Second Amendment rewritten. That's the only thing you can do at this point with this many guns in our country. There is nothing else that both parties will agree on currently that will make a difference in gun violence unless we rewrite the Second Amendment. And we would have to do that together as a country and agree on something that makes more sense than the one we currently have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Good luck with repealing the Second Amendment, after 225 years.
 
CivicED said:
No. We just want the Second Amendment rewritten. That's the only thing you can do at this point with this many guns in our country. There is nothing else that both parties will agree on currently that will make a difference in gun violence unless we rewrite the Second Amendment. And we would have to do that together as a country and agree on something that makes more sense than the one we currently have.
Click to expand...

Absolute asinine drivel.

People peddling lies have no place in determining what honest citizens do. Who in their right mind thinks giving criminals unarmed victims will reduce crime? Do gun control advocates have some written agreement from Crime INC that they can produce? Can they explain how this incredible miracle is going to work. I do so wish just one of them would do that.

What makes sense is we use proven facts and that leaves gun control with nothing as they have yet to prove one single gun has ever caused crime or that 1 million of them are more potent in causing crime. Which gun control advocate can point out how guns cause crime? What mechanism is used?

Until then lies have no place in determining laws and antisocial public enemies should realise what they are doing.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
Good luck with repealing the Second Amendment, after 225 years.
Click to expand...

It does sound extreme. But you have to make an extreme proposal even in legislation to pass something that would actually prevent gun violence in our country. Because of how many guns are already in our country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CivicED said:
No. We just want the Second Amendment rewritten. That's the only thing you can do at this point with this many guns in our country. There is nothing else that both parties will agree on currently that will make a difference in gun violence unless we rewrite the Second Amendment. And we would have to do that together as a country and agree on something that makes more sense than the one we currently have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nothing makes more sense then what is already written in the 2nd Amendment.

Although we could take off the first clause, all it does is confuse liberals.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
There is no "disconnect", there is no individual "right" to own AR-15's, police agencies/military can own AR-15's....just as individuals do not have a "right" to own BAR's or grenades...or A-bombs.
Click to expand...

Utter non-sense.
 
TurtleDude said:
the Supreme court has yet to really come to grips with the conflict between the incorporation of the second amendment and existing police powers of the several states.
Click to expand...

I like Justice Thomas' argument in McDonald v. Chicago that the Court should have used the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause as the vehicle for incorporating the Second Amendment and applying it as a limitation on the states. What he objects to about Cruikshank is its holding that the right to keep and bear arms was not a privilege of American citizenship, which was the Court's basis for overturning the convictions of white militia members involved in the Colfax Massacre:


Cruikshank's holding that blacks could look only to state governments for protection of their right to keep and bear arms enabled private forces, often with the assistance of local governments, to subjugate the newly freed slaves and their descendants through a wave of private violence designed to drive blacks from the voting booth and force them into peonage, an effective return to slavery. Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the Fourteenth Amendment had just made citizens.
.....................................................................
In my view. the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood--just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did--that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery. There is nothing about Cruikshank's contrary holding that warrants its retention.

I agree with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States. I do so because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.
 
CivicED said:
It does sound extreme. But you have to make an extreme proposal even in legislation to pass something that would actually prevent gun violence in our country. Because of how many guns are already in our country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Constitution was purposely made hard to amend. Repealing the Second Amendment would require two nationwide supermajority votes--a two-thirds followed by a three-quarters. Hell will freeze over first.
 
blaxshep said:
Nothing makes more sense then what is already written in the 2nd Amendment.

Although we could take off the first clause, all it does is confuse liberals.
Click to expand...

I am saying we need to make it more clear what infringe and fire arms mean because democrats keep wasting tax payer money arguing gun reform that will do no good because of how many private guns are already in this country at this point. And some state laws and ATF laws already infringe on our right to bear arms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
matchlight said:
The Constitution was purposely made hard to amend. Repealing the Second Amendment would require two nationwide supermajority votes--a two-thirds followed by a three-quarters. Hell will freeze over first.
Click to expand...

I agree, do you think we need more gun legislation or less?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CivicED said:
I agree, do you think we need more gun legislation or less?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

we need less laws such as the hughes amendment-that are designed purely to harass gun owners

and we need to enforce ones that are on the books. ANYONE is who TURNED DOWN buying a gun at a dealer has committed federal perjury. yet almost none are prosecuted for that
 
TurtleDude said:
we need less laws such as the hughes amendment-that are designed purely to harass gun owners

and we need to enforce ones that are on the books. ANYONE is who TURNED DOWN buying a gun at a dealer has committed federal perjury. yet almost none are prosecuted for that
Click to expand...

What type of gun laws do you agree with that states do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CivicED said:
What type of gun laws do you agree with that states do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


1) limit gun sales to people of a certain age.

2) restrict the use of firearms in areas where firing a weapon will not have a high chance of causing harm. Laws that ban firing high powered rifles in urban parks for example make sense

3) laws that prevent the use of firearms by those under the influence of drugs or alcohol

4) laws that punish the use of firearms that harm innocents. such as laws that ENHANCE the penalty for say robbery if you use a firearm to threaten or harm the victim.
 
Moderate Right said:
Your answer is in the thread. It's not my fault you're too lazy to read your fellow poster's posts.
Click to expand...

Well perhaps this thread is a bad example because it's asking about an impossible hypothetical scenario. If I could wave a magic wand and have every gun in the country vanish from all but police officers, that would be great. How many confrontations with police would end with everyone alive when the cops know for a fact that the suspect isn't armed? ****, they'd barely need guns themselves, except for the occasional knife/axe maniac. Plus, the guy breaking into my house is now guaranteed to not have a gun. In that world if you give me a baseball bat I can hold my own against pretty much anyone out there.

But this is a dumb scenario that nobody is expecting in the first place so why are we talking about this?
 
CivicED said:
I agree, do you think we need more gun legislation or less?
Click to expand...

In general, I believe we need less of it. But whether we needed a specific proposal would all depend on the details of what was being proposed.
 
matchlight said:
In general, I believe we need less of it. But whether we needed a specific proposal would all depend on the details of what was being proposed.
Click to expand...

So then what's your thoughts on why we have too much gun legislation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
CivicED said:
So then what's your thoughts on why we have too much gun legislation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

its a way Democrats pander to slow witted voters who demand something be done over every highly hyped massacre

its a way racists try to keep blacks disarmed or a way the rich try to oppress the poor.

and its a way pillow headed utopians pretend to do something about violence
 
CivicED said:
So then what's your thoughts on why we have too much gun legislation?
Click to expand...

Interesting question. What is apparent is the gun control legislation is increasing. I know some will argue that but it is a fact. Mainly at State level many changes have been made. Sandy Hook was set to introducing the big wammy for some semi auto rifles. "Assault" if you wish. It took a year to prepare legislation and by that time the emotional force of Sandy Hook had become tired old news that could not be sustained. The federal push failed from common sense returning to normal without the fear and horror to keep it afloat. It was due in no part to any action taken by firearm organisations. Gun control will not be caught sleeping the next time.

What gun control is is an organisation that has only one objective, to render the vast majority of citizens defenceless. Gun control will take any law meaningless or not for the simple reason it is a victory to inspire its supporters. For a reason one must look to the funders of gun control. That means beyond the fronts. George Soros via the Open Society Foundation funnels billions per year into gun control. He is but a front.

Why are there so many laws? Because firearm organisation management does not concern itself with citizens loss of rights and could not be bothered to apply the most effective means of ensuring a law is never passed. People power. No law can be passed or remain on the books without public acceptance. Firearm organisations never at any point in time mobilise members into objection and making that objection known as widely as possible. When one has a potential 100 million helpers who will stand up and also vote if needed you can tell government to get stuffed. With less than 1000 you can flood every newspaper, magazine, radio or TV station with your grievances of government endangering public safety. At the moment that front is the small grass roots organisations that are attempting to save themselves that is the last viable front firearm owners have. For many reasons mainstream firearm organisations are blinkered and see nothing except what possibly concerns them. What laws are passed they tell their members to accept and obey they can still shoot. This called shooting yourself in the foot as those firearm owners will never challenge such a law. Only an idiot thinks people will fight what they accept.

We have so many laws because firearm organisations and thus firearm owners simply have no answer to gun control. They are not capable of removing one law
unless through legal channels (irrelevant) or taking back any gun control bound state. They simply do not know how to. Many think they do, none can.

A lot more than you wanted to know but a balanced view of the current situation.
 
matchlight said:
In general, I believe we need less of it. But whether we needed a specific proposal would all depend on the details of what was being proposed.
Click to expand...

Over a long period of time I have tried to figure what would be acceptable laws and the only possibilities I could find were taking over parents responsibility which I don't like as a suggested minimum age and I thought about repeat violent offenders since we refuse to keep them locked up where they should be. It would be token legislation since it will achieve nothing and feel good is not reason for legislation. Cops will argue as it removes some of the trivia they use to hold people while they fish. There is in fact no pervasive reason for a single gun control law. I feel I have some understanding of the founders position. Nobody then produced a good reason either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom