• 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!

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  • Total voters
    69
LaMidRighter said:
Then you may want to use better logic than Brady campaign material, you are essentially mirroring their statements. So you are right, there is a major fail, it just doesn't happen to be mine.
Click to expand...
No, I have said nothing that makes me anti-gun. In fact, in the post that TD responded to which you then replied to, I said something that made it clear I am not anti-gun. The inference is yours and has nothing to do with me, so you should own that rather than trying to make me responsible for your decision to make things up about me.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Because his car was more dangerous to human life than most people's guns?
Click to expand...
Is there a reason why every reply to me is irrelevant to any point I've made?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The same way Thunder does.

Thunder would probably take it as a compliment to be likened to Ted Kennedy. Were I to make such a comparison, I would certainly mean it as something very much other than a compliment.
Click to expand...

wtf does this thread have to do with Ted Kennedy????
 
Amigo said:
Simple yes or no answer.
Click to expand...
Maybe a simple yes or no will suffice for a conservative, but not for a progressive. Conditions and society are far different today than they were 300 years ago, but, tis true, some things never change.
There will always be those who wish to instill their will on others.
And those people can be either "gun-lovers" or "gun-haters".
I am neither.... The rights of either must be respected..
 
Psychoclown said:
I don't need to say anything else here, do I? You nailed it. When some crazed crack head breaks into your house which would you rather have, a phone to call the cops or a glock to put the bastard down?
Click to expand...
Two rather stupid options...on an emotional, non-thinking basis, I'd rather have a weapon to blow this SOB to Kingdom-Come.
But, thinking ahead is better.. Far too many home-owners with weapons have this defense fail on them....
I favor working on conditions to prevent the "crack-head" in the first place.
And when man thinks of his fellow man as being a "bastard", then one must know that we have some serious problems in our society.
GUNS ARE NOT THE ANSWER!!!
 
I detest guns and what they stand for but they exist.

In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England.

"It is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

I take this to mean that we the people who give consent to the federal authorities to govern us will not give up our right to resist oppressive rule by them if they so chose, because we are simply defenseless. It speaks of the peoples rights to be allowed to deter undemocratic government, repel invasion, suppress insurrection, participate in law enforcement, facilitate a natural right to defense. And above all the freedom to choose who ultimately has supreme rule over us, which is ourselves and a governing body by consent, not any other minority group by force. We will never be able to secure our rights or liberties if we are not allowed to have equal defense.

I hope someone doesn't point out the absurd that we the people don't have nukes, bombs, tanks, missiles, fighter jets, blah blah blah. I don't have arms like Hulk Hogan either that's why I believe this should be the 2 1/2 Amendment...

 
One reason to limit the killing power allowed to anyone and everyone is all the people even on this forum who claim they have a right to kill politicians and government employees they believe are violating their rights.

Sort of changing the line from a movie, you probably don't need to fear someone with a machine gun. Instead, fear the person who desperately wants one.

It could be argued that any person who is too stupid to be able to make a machine gun or explosive device is just way too stupid to be allowed to have one.

I oppose stupid people and people ignorant about firearms and gun laws having firearms. If a person can not show they are proficient in firearms usage, knowledgable in gun laws and are unable to act somewhat normal at least for a few minutes while being tested, they should not have one. I also oppose old people inflicted with dementia having firearms.

People are required to have almost an endless list of licenses - personal or professional - depending what they want to do. I see no reason gun ownership would be any exception nor would that be a violation of the constitution as has been ruled already. The government already can ban certain people from firearms ownership (minors, felons, insane, convicted of certain crimes, dishonorably discharged, under a court protective order restraint for domestic violence etc.)

The government also could ban ownership to people who do not demonstration they are not STUPID or ignorant about firearms and gun laws. I'm against an INCOMPETENT IDIOT owning an AR with 100 round canisters.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
One reason to limit the killing power allowed to anyone and everyone is all the people even on this forum who claim they have a right to kill politicians and government employees they believe are violating their rights....
Click to expand...

yes, by limiting magazine capacity, we can limit the number of politicians who are murdered by so-called Freedom Fighters, who think deadly violence is the first & only option to address political grievances.
 
Thunder said:
yes, by limiting magazine capacity, we can limit the number of politicians who are murdered by so-called Freedom Fighters, who think deadly violence is the first & only option to address political grievances.
Click to expand...

And as we saw with the Congresswoman, they murdering everyone they can at that time. That is the same with workplace, college and public rage killings. It isn't just the targeted person(s) - but everyone they can possibly kill for no reason other than killing as many people as possible.
 
Psychoclown said:
I don't need to say anything else here, do I? You nailed it. When some crazed crack head breaks into your house which would you rather have, a phone to call the cops or a glock to put the bastard down?
Click to expand...

Well that does help some... many of the horrific crimes come when somebody breaks into your house and you just aren't ready to grab your gun. They appear in your kids room or behind you as you walk to your TV or at the door as you go to answer it calmly. We always here of the great cases that somebody got a chance to grab their gun and blow the **** outa the bad guy, but I think that this is the exception rather than the rule until people start carrying weapons on the most of the time even at home.
 
Thunder said:
yes, by limiting magazine capacity, we can limit the number of politicians who are murdered by so-called Freedom Fighters, who think deadly violence is the first & only option to address political grievances.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't that be an infringement on the right to bear arms?
 
The typical hysterics are being dusted off now, usage of such is a concession of defeat. Thank you gun grabbers for using them early and saving bandwidth.
 
Thunder said:
let the SCOTUS decide.
Click to expand...

That's what it's for, after all.

But, wasn't the argument made that the second amendment needs no interpretation, or was that a misunderstanding of mine? If it needs no interpretation, then why do we need the SCOTUS?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, I have said nothing that makes me anti-gun. In fact, in the post that TD responded to which you then replied to, I said something that made it clear I am not anti-gun.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. You are anti-gun and don't even realize it. Either you believe in the second or you don't, either you believe that limits on the BOR must meet necessary and proper or you don't. There is no such thing is "I am pro-_________, but........." when dealing with this issue. If you have to issue a qualifier then you are not being honest with yourself. This is your failing not mine.
The inference is yours and has nothing to do with me, so you should own that rather than trying to make me responsible for your decision to make things up about me.
Click to expand...
You actually think that the second is a "collective right"? Do you know which side of the issue thinks it's a "collective right"?
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
Incorrect. You are anti-gun and don't even realize it. Either you believe in the second or you don't, either you believe that limits on the BOR must meet necessary and proper or you don't. There is no such thing is "I am pro-_________, but........." when dealing with this issue. If you have to issue a qualifier then you are not being honest with yourself. This is your failing not mine. You actually think that the second is a "collective right"? Do you know which side of the issue thinks it's a "collective right"?
Click to expand...

I think that it is a collective right as Scalia described in whatever case that was...
 
LaMidRighter said:
Incorrect. You are anti-gun and don't even realize it. Either you believe in the second or you don't, either you believe that limits on the BOR must meet necessary and proper or you don't. There is no such thing is "I am pro-_________, but........." when dealing with this issue. If you have to issue a qualifier then you are not being honest with yourself. This is your failing not mine. You actually think that the second is a "collective right"? Do you know which side of the issue thinks it's a "collective right"?
Click to expand...
In this post, you tell a stranger who they are based on your feelings and you try to bully/shame someone into agreeing with you. I'm not interested.
 
Incorrect. You are anti-gun and don't even realize it. Either you believe in the second or you don't, either you believe that limits on the BOR must meet necessary and proper or you don't. There is no such thing is "I am pro-_________, but........." when dealing with this issue. If you have to issue a qualifier then you are not being honest with yourself. This is your failing not mine.
Click to expand...

Just for consistency sake. Are you pro-First Amendment or anti? Do you think freedom of speech should be in all circumstances including yelling fire in a theatre or bomb on a plane? What are you thoughts on the "Ground Zero Mosque"? I don't know your views but to point to only one Amendment and create a false all or nothing scenario is faulty logic.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I think that it is a collective right as Scalia described in whatever case that was...
Click to expand...
It was never ruled as a collective right, just the opposite. The collective rights argument comes from an intentional mis-reading of the purpose of the comma within the amendment. The subordinate clause is the militia argument that has no bearing on the main clause of no infringement. The militia argument was intentionally created to weaken the breadth of the second by forcing the right into collective use.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
In this post, you tell a stranger who they are based on your feelings and you try to bully/shame someone into agreeing with you. I'm not interested.
Click to expand...
You don't get it. YOU are telling us all we need to know with your stance and the language used. The pro-second side has heard all that crap before, and surpisingly never from people who want to preserve the right.
 
Yes, as well as my family. Had it not been for her shotgun, my sister could have been raped and killed in her home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom