• 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
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.

So what are you saying?

The actions of one crazy person adds weight to the gun debate?
 
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.
You may restrict any right with a very strict test. Necessary and proper, necessary means you must prove beyond a doubt that there is either "imminent danger", "clear and present danger", or other very strict, provable, and immediate threats in order to restrict a right. In other words owning a fully automatic doesn't hurt anyone, using it is a danger, but you would have to prove that people are using them illegitimately in large numbers to properly restrict the right. Proper must have proof and necessity.
 
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.

That sounds great. I'm sure some day we'll create some perfect society where there is no crime whatsoever and we all join hands every day at dawn and sing Kumbayah to greet the new day. :roll:

Until that glorious day comes, crime in general and home invasions in particular will be a fact of life. You can take steps to make it more difficult, but its almost impossible to keep someone who is sufficiently motivated from breaking and entering into a private residence. Especially for middle and working class folks who can't afford elaborate security measures. And I guarantee you any reasonable thinking person when faced with a home intrusion would be glad to have firearm in their hands.

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!!!

Someone who breaks into my house and intends to cause me, my family, or my property harm is indeed a bastard. A society that can't recognize that basic fact has serious problems.

I never understand people who are so anti-gun. Does anyone really think laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals? People who by definition have no respect or regard for the law? The only people gun bans prevent from having guns are law abiding citizens.
 
Someone who breaks into my house and intends to cause me, my family, or my property harm is indeed a bastard. A society that can't recognize that basic fact has serious problems.

I never understand people who are so anti-gun. Does anyone really think laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals? People who by definition have no respect or regard for the law? The only people gun bans prevent from having guns are law abiding citizens.

This, x1000.
 
The only people gun bans prevent from having guns are law abiding citizens.
And law abiding citizens with mental problems or other traits that ensure they have no business owning guns.
 
i believe i have a natrual born right to protect myself, my family AND my property with equal or greater force as to what is being used against me......if an intruder confronts me with a gun...i will retaliate with a gun.....if an intruder confronts me with a stick...i will retaliate with a gun.....here in NC the new Castle Doctrine just went into affect....no longer does a home owner have to try to flee before using deadly force nor does he have contemplate a list of other requirements before pulling the trigger......some criminals have already tested the new law, however we will never be able to hear their thoughts about it:mrgreen:
 
And law abiding citizens with mental problems or other traits that ensure they have no business owning guns.
And what mental problems would that be? What "Other traits" do you and the rest of the anti-gun crowd consider to qualify for "no business owning guns"? Give us a complete list. Considering that not all "mental problems" are created equal and even two different cases of the same affliction aren't created equal. Give us some "other traits" within your distinct "weapons expertise".
 
You may restrict any right with a very strict test. Necessary and proper, necessary means you must prove beyond a doubt that there is either "imminent danger", "clear and present danger", or other very strict, provable, and immediate threats in order to restrict a right. In other words owning a fully automatic doesn't hurt anyone, using it is a danger, but you would have to prove that people are using them illegitimately in large numbers to properly restrict the right. Proper must have proof and necessity.

Is the same true of missiles, bombs, and RPGs?

all are arms.
 
And what mental problems would that be? What "Other traits" do you and the rest of the anti-gun crowd consider to qualify for "no business owning guns"? Give us a complete list. Considering that not all "mental problems" are created equal and even two different cases of the same affliction aren't created equal. Give us some "other traits" within your distinct "weapons expertise".
I'll answer your questions when you show that you can comprehend my words by stopping your use of "anti-gun". I'm not going to bother giving authentic answers just to hear, "but you don't really believe that, liar" which is what you're saying by calling me "anti-gun".
 
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.

There ain't so many of them, so we don't really need to worry about it.
 
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.
So again, you are telling a stranger who they are based on previous "crap" you've heard from people who aren't me.
 
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.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a limitation because it directly sets up an environment where the rights of the individual are threatened.

But in general, very few people support in full all the rights. Some hate OWS and talk about government force against their right to assemble and protest. Some hate guns and talk about government force against the right to keep and bear arms. It is a rare individual these days, sadly enough, who can accept ALL the rights and gladly shoulder the responsibilities and consequences which come with freedom.
 
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.

It was an ablative clause, or something, and it is not an intentional mis-reading... it is grammar. I also think that this strengthens the 2nd, not weakens it.
 
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a limitation because it directly sets up an environment where the rights of the individual are threatened.

But in general, very few people support in full all the rights. Some hate OWS and talk about government force against their right to assemble and protest. Some hate guns and talk about government force against the right to keep and bear arms. It is a rare individual these days, sadly enough, who can accept ALL the rights and gladly shoulder the responsibilities and consequences which come with freedom.

True, and yet, if we can't accept people we disagree with having rights, then none of us has rights.
 
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.
Exactly, the idea that I have to spell out the fact that rights must sometimes be limited for safety sake is nonsensical. It's not an all or nothing scenario. I remember the guy who shot up Virginia Tech had a history of mental problems that were pretty much ignored in the official sense. People like him should not have guns.
 
I believe strongly in the right to own a gun and if I had one it would be for social unrest not home defense. As long as I'm physically able to use a putter against someones kneecap that will have to suffice. My worst nightmare is to unload a clip into a family member or teenage kid making a stupid decision. How many times have you hopped out of bed because something went "crick!" in the night and held a bat, club etc? Or did you have a handful of .44 magnum Desert Eagle ready to turn someone into meatloaf?
 
Is the same true of missiles, bombs, and RPGs?

all are arms.
It can be proven that they cause unintended collateral damage when used properly. BTW, some of those things are legal with a proper ordnance license.
 
I'll answer your questions when you show that you can comprehend my words by stopping your use of "anti-gun". I'm not going to bother giving authentic answers just to hear, "but you don't really believe that, liar" which is what you're saying by calling me "anti-gun".
I'll stop using it when you stop trying to creatively interpret the right to act like you are pro-gun. So answer the question since you are the one saying you are capable of determining who may exercise this right you say you support. You put out the conditions so YOU back it up if you can.
 
I'll stop using it when you stop trying to creatively interpret the right to act like you are pro-gun. So answer the question since you are the one saying you are capable of determining who may exercise this right you say you support. You put out the conditions so YOU back it up if you can.
See, the problem is that I have no interest in answering your questions or in impressing you so it's not a matter of asking you for politeness sake. It's a matter of discerning your willingness to have a discussion. You're the one asking me the questions. I haven't asked you for a single one of your opinion. Now, I gave you a chance to show that you were willing to have a discussion. You appear to not be willing. That's all I have to say then.
 
Last edited:
See, the problem is that I have no interest in answering your questions or in impressing you. You're the one asking me the questions. I haven't asked you for a single one of your opinion. Now, I gave you a chance to show that you were capable of comprehending the answers I've already given, but you refused to do so. Consequently, I no longer feel it worth my time to provide authentic, thoughtful answers that you will undoubtedly call lies.
And I have no interest in the blanket opinions of someone who claims to be pro-second but throws out the same restrictive attitude of the Brady Campaign. You don't even know which side you are on, and you haven't demonstrated a working knowledge of the subject. I've given you ample opportunity to provide some evidence you know something about the subject and you dodge. Meaning you pretty much have nothing, noted.
 
And law abiding citizens with mental problems or other traits that ensure they have no business owning guns.

And who would those otherwise law abiding citizens be?

A 70 + year old citizen who has owned and handled guns without incident since he was 10 without incident, who now believes in extremely limited government, owns several guns for the sole purpose of self defense, including some that look like military weapons, and who disagrees with most liberal policies?

A person or group of persons who, because of their religion, believe that their god wants them to kill anyone who disagrees with them, including their own daughters in some cases, and uses as a reference guide a book that includes over 60 references to killing of infidels? but otherwise is a law abiding citizen.

A group of politically highly placed individuals, numbering less than 50, that are so wrapped up in the removal of weapons from the US that they would order legal gun dealers to look the other way and sell guns illegally in order to claim that most of the guns in a foreign country originated in the US? Resulting in the deaths of over 200 persons. But other than that, were law abiding citizens.

The problem with your logic, and by no means an original thought on my part in these threads, is that it is you who wants to decide who is mentally capable of owning and handling a weapon before the fact. Frankly, if you come up with a 100% effective method for weeding out these before the fact incompetents, without infringing on my rights, then I would be in favor.
 
I have no problem with people who have clinical/official mental problems not having guns. If you're certifiably insane, you don't get to have a gun, because you might mistake the man over there for this guy:

3398697997_40a177c6f1.jpg
 
I have no problem with people who have clinical/official mental problems not having guns. If you're certifiably insane, you don't get to have a gun, because you might mistake the man over there for this guy:

View attachment 67120606
Certification is the key problem. Many of the people who throw out mental deficiency and criminal intent paint with such a broad brush that anyone who would show any mild spectrum problem would be disqualified, if you look deeply enough that could be applied to anyone.
 
Even if control freaks were able to remove all fire arms from the US there still would be firearms not only in a black market, but there are thousands of gun smiths capable of building a firearm from scratch. And the prohibition of alcohol and the current prohibition of drugs should be proof enough that prohibitions do not work as intended. Plus the fact the the right to bear arms is American culture if that right is removed you might as well just say hey we are starting civil war by trying to take away your right to bear arms. And I have no doubt that Americans would over react to such action.
 
You may restrict any right with a very strict test. Necessary and proper, necessary means you must prove beyond a doubt that there is either "imminent danger", "clear and present danger", or other very strict, provable, and immediate threats in order to restrict a right. In other words owning a fully automatic doesn't hurt anyone, using it is a danger, but you would have to prove that people are using them illegitimately in large numbers to properly restrict the right. Proper must have proof and necessity.

So you don't think we have any issues? That the higher the normal gun death rate in the US is abnormal or proof that our lax gun controls are not working? I'm definately not for any sort of gun ban, I honestly don't care if responsible people have weapons and in a rural area I wouldn't live without one. At the same time, obviously we have an issue with a huge amount of guns that get out into the wrong hands very easily. I'm guessing it's very easy to get a gun...like go to a gun show and buy one bypassing any laws.

There's a major difference between requiring something and not enforcing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom