• 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!

A gun-rights group in Connecticut has pulled its endorsement for a Repub candidate after she spoke o

JacksinPA said:
The Second A. was written back in the 18th century when we had state militias, not a national army or state police forces. Every member of the militia had a musket ready to go if called on. With our current national army & state & local police forces, the 2nd A. is obsolete & should either be repealed or amended as there is no need now for anyone to have a gun ready to go.

In 18th century legal speak, the intent of the amendment was expressed in the preamble: 'A well regulated militia being necessary...' We don't have militias any more. The 2nd A is now just an excuse for the gun lobby to make & sell guns.
Click to expand...
The point of the entire Bill Of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, was to draw a line that the government was not supposed to cross, ever. For the government to cross that line would mean that the government is being oppressive and exceeding its authority. That is why the 2nd Amendment or any of the Amendments in the Bill Of Rights cannot be repealed or amended.
 
JacksinPA said:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...sement-after-gop-candidate-opposed-3d-printed

A gun-rights group in Connecticut has pulled its endorsement for a Republican candidate after she spoke out against 3D-printed guns.

Susan Hatfield (R) was previously endorsed by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) in her primary race for attorney general, Fox 61 News reported Sunday.

The CCDL, however, withdrew its endorsement on Thursday after Hatfield condemned 3D-printed firearms.
==============================================
I think a lot of these gun-rights people should get mental stability checkups.
Click to expand...

many gun banners think anyone who owns guns are insane. Many who own guns think the same way of adults who are afraid of firearms
 
JacksinPA said:
The Second A. was written back in the 18th century when we had state militias, not a national army or state police forces. Every member of the militia had a musket ready to go if called on. With our current national army & state & local police forces, the 2nd A. is obsolete & should either be repealed or amended as there is no need now for anyone to have a gun ready to go.

In 18th century legal speak, the intent of the amendment was expressed in the preamble: 'A well regulated militia being necessary...' We don't have militias any more. The 2nd A is now just an excuse for the gun lobby to make & sell guns.
Click to expand...

people who want to ban honest people owing the same defensive firearms civilian state agents use, are a perfect reason why we need to be armed.
 
DebateChallenge said:
The point of the entire Bill Of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, was to draw a line that the government was not supposed to cross, ever. For the government to cross that line would mean that the government is being oppressive and exceeding its authority. That is why the 2nd Amendment or any of the Amendments in the Bill Of Rights cannot be repealed or amended.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights is the nickname for the first 10 amendments. There is no reason they cannot be changed by the amendment process, In whole or in part.
 
JacksinPA said:
In the strict context of the gun owner belonging to a well-regulated (state) militia. Those don't exist any longer.
Click to expand...

that demonstrates a rather profound lack of understanding of the second amendment specifically and our constitutional foundation in general
 
jimbo said:
The Bill of Rights is the nickname for the first 10 amendments. There is no reason they cannot be changed by the amendment process, In whole or in part.
Click to expand...

Find a recent red/blue map of the US. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.
 
Rucker61 said:
Find a recent red/blue map of the US. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.
Click to expand...

I never said it would be easy. But the requirements are exactly the same as for any other amendment, or creating a new one.
 
DebateChallenge said:
The point of the entire Bill Of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, was to draw a line that the government was not supposed to cross, ever. For the government to cross that line would mean that the government is being oppressive and exceeding its authority. That is why the 2nd Amendment or any of the Amendments in the Bill Of Rights cannot be repealed or amended.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense. Of course they can. The entire BOR could be ripped up
 
jimbo said:
Nothing in the second says make and sell. It says keep and bear.
Click to expand...

They can not legal sell them without applying for a serial number and adding it to the firearm. Those that make them kept and bear them.
 
TurtleDude said:
many gun banners think anyone who owns guns are insane. Many who own guns think the same way of adults who are afraid of firearms
Click to expand...

It's reasonable to be afraid of firearms, and it's reasonable to be afraid of men with firearms. These are things that civilized people need to learn to get accustomed to.

What's insane is sending violent men into the homes of nonviolent men, to deprive them of life and liberty, in the name of peace.
 
jimbo said:
The Bill of Rights is the nickname for the first 10 amendments. There is no reason they cannot be changed by the amendment process, In whole or in part.
Click to expand...

Other than will of the people, who do not and will not support the repeal of any part of the Bill of Rights.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Other than will of the people, who do not and will not support the repeal of any part of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Difficult? Yes. Deliberately so. Impossible? Not at all.
 
jimbo said:
Difficult? Yes. Deliberately so. Impossible? Not at all.
Click to expand...

Alright, that's fair. If the anti-gun groups manage to persuade and/or disenfranchise enough gun-owning voters, they could eventually pull it off.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It's reasonable to be afraid of firearms
Click to expand...
No its not reasonable to be afraid of firearms, its just reasonable to respect them.

Korimyr the Rat said:
it's reasonable to be afraid of men with firearms.
Click to expand...
So you must be afraid of police officers.

Korimyr the Rat said:
What's insane is sending violent men into the homes of nonviolent men, to deprive them of life and liberty, in the name of peace.
Click to expand...
In the name of peace? Being deprived of live and liberty is not peaceful.
 
JacksinPA said:
The Second A. was written back in the 18th century when we had state militias, not a national army or state police forces. Every member of the militia had a musket ready to go if called on. With our current national army & state & local police forces, the 2nd A. is obsolete & should either be repealed or amended as there is no need now for anyone to have a gun ready to go.

In 18th century legal speak, the intent of the amendment was expressed in the preamble: 'A well regulated militia being necessary...' We don't have militias any more. The 2nd A is now just an excuse for the gun lobby to make & sell guns.
Click to expand...


The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to keep and bear arms. That right is one of those "unalienable" human rights mentioned by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that predate both our Constitution and governments in general. Every human is born with the basic right to self-preservation by whatever means available. The 2nd Amendment is nothing but an enumeration and guarantee of that basic human right...because at the time the security of our fledgling free state depended upon a well-regulated militia. Indeed, that dependence still exists today...our professional military does not have the capability to defend this nation alone. Not only do its members come from the civilian population, but millions of those members are part of the inactive reserve and the unorganized militia that would need to be called up and utilized in worst-case scenarios. Just because we've not had those worse-case scenarios in our recent history does not mean they can never happen again. (Those who think otherwise are probably the same ninnies who cut the salt/cinder.snow removal budget after a couple of warm winters and are "surprised" when they get a normal winter again).

So you can interpret or misinterpret the 2nd Amendment all you want...heck, repeal it if you think you can...it doesn't matter. We were all born with the right to keep and bear arms and the ONLY way you can take it away from us is either by conning us out of it (which you seem to be attempting here) or taking it by force of arms.
 
jimbo said:
Nothing in the second says make and sell. It says keep and bear.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old Commerce Clause argument. It was the basis of both the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968...and the very reason why private citizens can still make firearms for their personal use and/or buy/sell commercial firearms in their own states...because the Federal government does not have the power to regulate intra-state commerce.

If you want to ban the manufacture and sales of firearms, go for it...as long as that ban applies to government as well. This notion that the citizens should pay for its EMPLOYEES to own and use items that they are prevented from using is pure horsepucky. What is good for the government is good for the citizen. Indeed, history has proven that government is more likely to abuse arms than citizens are...and at a much higher cost in blood and treasure. If any entity needs to be strictly regulated when it comes to arms, it is government.
 
JacksinPA said:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...sement-after-gop-candidate-opposed-3d-printed

A gun-rights group in Connecticut has pulled its endorsement for a Republican candidate after she spoke out against 3D-printed guns.

Susan Hatfield (R) was previously endorsed by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL) in her primary race for attorney general, Fox 61 News reported Sunday.

The CCDL, however, withdrew its endorsement on Thursday after Hatfield condemned 3D-printed firearms.
==============================================
I think a lot of these gun-rights people should get mental stability checkups.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they seem to jsut go all in on extremism. Unfettered access to any kind of gun for all. They have really been brainwash to fight against reasonable gun control because they have been told over and over the stupid slippery slope nonsense that people are going to take their guns.

And watch, you won't even get a reasonable argument about why 3D guns should not be illegal, it will be stupid talking points like they always spout or ignore the real dangers of 3D printed guns.
 
Jarhead1369 said:
Ah, the old Commerce Clause argument. It was the basis of both the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968...and the very reason why private citizens can still make firearms for their personal use and/or buy/sell commercial firearms in their own states...because the Federal government does not have the power to regulate intra-state commerce.

If you want to ban the manufacture and sales of firearms, go for it...as long as that ban applies to government as well. This notion that the citizens should pay for its EMPLOYEES to own and use items that they are prevented from using is pure horsepucky. What is good for the government is good for the citizen. Indeed, history has proven that government is more likely to abuse arms than citizens are...and at a much higher cost in blood and treasure. If any entity needs to be strictly regulated when it comes to arms, it is government.
Click to expand...

I was addressing a single non true statement. I stand foursquare feet planted firmly as a second amendment advocate.
 
jimbo said:
I was addressing a single non true statement. I stand foursquare feet planted firmly as a second amendment advocate.
Click to expand...

and I am thankful for that! I'm new to these parts, so please excuse my tendency to use some posts as "teachable" moments...especially when it comes to firearms. ;)
 
Jarhead1369 said:
and I am thankful for that! I'm new to these parts, so please excuse my tendency to use some posts as "teachable" moments...especially when it comes to firearms. ;)
Click to expand...

You can always tell a Marine, but you just can't tell'em much ;)

Welcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom