• 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
grip said:
When someone like Jared Lee Loughner who is obviously severely mentally ill slips through the system, purchases a glock 9mm and kills 6 people, injuring 13 others and you don't want anyone interpreting who's qualified to have handguns? That would make you a certified noodle.
Click to expand...
Bad example. The authorities who were supposed to keep him from doing harm, such as the sheriffs office dropped the ball. So basically that's yet another reason to drop "appeal to authority". The guns he had would not have been sold to him if it was reported to the feds that the kid was unstable, he already had a past conducive to barring firearms possession yet he "slipped through the cracks" due to the people that gun grabbers would empower to choose how I may exercise my rights, no thank you.
 
joko104 said:
I highly suggest (and practice) that the FIRST round in a home defense firearm should be non-lethal (only rarely causing death) such as rubber bullets.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like, back when Joycelyn Elders spoke of “safer guns” and “safer bullets”, you were among the gullible few who assumed that she actually had some bare hint of a clue what she was talking about.
 
grip said:
When someone like Jared Lee Loughner who is obviously severely mentally ill slips through the system, purchases a glock 9mm and kills 6 people, injuring 13 others and you don't want anyone interpreting who's qualified to have handguns? That would make you a certified noodle.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it a well known fact that nut cases that plan the capital murder of a federal judge and intend to commit the capital murder of a US Congresswoman and other individuals will actually be prevented from buying a handgun by a law that would prvent him from obtaining one legally. After all, making crack and heroin illegally has now prevented anyone who does not have a valid prescription or pharmaceutical or Medical license from obtaining such narcotics.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Sounds to me like, back when Joycelyn Elders spoke of “safer guns” and “safer bullets”, you were among the gullible few who assumed that she actually had some bare hint of a clue what she was talking about.
Click to expand...

anyone who has had any training in this area (as you and I have) know that it is suicide to engage someone who is in the act of deploying lethal force with NON lethal force/ True, if all you have available is a tazer, a can of mace or a rubber bullet, that is better than nothing but its moronic to limit your defensive options to such things. Non Lethal force was designed for LEOs in situations where they were dealing with beligerent, intoxicated or large numbers of disruptive indviduals, not people trying to kill them with effective weaponry.
 
TurtleDude said:
anyone who has had any training in this area (as you and I have) know that it is suicide to engage someone who is in the act of deploying lethal force with NON lethal force/ True, if all you have available is a tazer, a can of mace or a rubber bullet, that is better than nothing but its moronic to limit your defensive options to such things. Non Lethal force was designed for LEOs in situations where they were dealing with beligerent, intoxicated or large numbers of disruptive indviduals, not people trying to kill them with effective weaponry.
Click to expand...

First round being a rubber bullet may be the silliest suggestion on this thread. If that was my first round, I would rely on a double tap. The only chance you would have with a rubber bullet would be the criminal laughing himself to death.

Personally, I would rather have a box of rocks than my first round being non lethal.
 
LaMidRighter said:
What are you getting at? The main check on rights is that of infringing the rights of others, owning firearms of differing fire rates doesn't harm anyone. The mere presence of poorly stored ordnance can take out a city block easily, blowing up the neighboorhood or the chance of the ordnance doing so is not on the same minor level of threat as small arms such as full autos, shotguns, handguns......etc.

In other words, my owning a machine gun doesn't endanger you or your family but my owning explosives would.
Click to expand...

So, the question is not so much one of supporting the Second Amendment, as it is where my freedom ends and yours begins.

Does it end with my possessing bombs and missiles?
with my possessing automatic fire weapons? Assault rifles? rifles that hold more rounds than someone else thinks is OK? with my having a handgun in the car? with my possession of a hunting rifle? with my carrying it around loaded? Just where?

My point: The Second Amendment is not absolute, and can not be. it has to be interpreted in the context of the 21st. century. It is not, therefore, a matter of "supporting" it or not, but of agreeing on just how far it really goes.

Therefore, people who don't want to take it as far as you aren't anti second amendment, just anti your point of view.
 
Dittohead not! said:
My point: The Second Amendment is not absolute, and can not be. it has to be interpreted in the context of the 21st. century. It is not, therefore, a matter of "supporting" it or not, but of agreeing on just how far it really goes.

Therefore, people who don't want to take it as far as you aren't anti second amendment, just anti your point of view.
Click to expand...
Exactly, just like Freedom of Speech can (and should) have limits so can (and should) the Right to Bear Arms. Consequently, the idea that supporting limits is "anti-second amendment" or "anti-gun" is nonsensical. And as I said earlier, hopefully the lawmakers and judges responsible for determining those limits will consult with experts on the particular topic who have the most evidence based arguments.
 
Wake said:
I would think, if some intruder with a knife/gun, was in your home, you'd be more inclined to have a nice and effective metal bullet as the first shot, instead of a bean bag or a rubber bullet.

You know, I'm not partial to giving the intruder added chances of succes in robbing/killing me.

Don't know about you, but I sure don't.
Click to expand...

If the intruder has a gun and suprises you - you die whether you have a gun or not. If you can't hit and knock someone down with a rubber bullet or bean bag, a metal bullet wouldn't do you any good either.

It is in fact known far more likely that shootings in a home most likely 1.) kill your own child 2.) is a child finding your gun and killing him/herself or a friend 3.) Kills a neighbor or friend and 4.) kills your spouse or yourself.

Also, depending on the state, you can't just kill an 11 year old burglarizing your house. Rubber bullets are a great defense in face of an minor aged, unarmed intruder. In fact, that unarmed intruder actually might still kill you, but if you're an mature adult man and the intruder an unarmed young teenager, a grand jury might not see it as "self defense" but a punitive killing - especially if you shot the kid multiple times with a para-military assault rifle.

A first-shot rubber bullet gives you more options and time to gather your senses. If you can't defend yourself in your home that way, the fact is you can't defense yourself otherwise.

As a true LOL, I know a very young, small and seemingly vulnerable fish and wildlife officer who on occasion will come across highly abusive drunk hunters or fisherman who basically become both intimidating, abusive and with her sensing a growing danger to herself being alone in the middle of nowhere with those men armed. She carried two side arms and is well practiced at drawing both. She found that if she pops one in the chest with a rubber 45 while then sighting the others down - that semi-auto adjusted specifically for the recoil of those bullets, and with the "real bullet" gun in her other hand - they become very extra "cooperative."

It takes a while for them to even figure out she hadn't killed one of them and absolutely believe her then as she shouts "drop your shotguns and get on facedown on the ground or I WILL kill you!" - them believing she just blew one of them away. Yet a real bullet would not be justified nor necessary. Rubber bullets cover that middle ground and allow extra control options and safeguards of either insufficient or excessive action.

Getting hit by a rubber bullet is like being hit by a sledge hammer.

You need to really ask yourself is your goal to defend yourself in the way least likely to also avoid innocent death by accident - or do you just want to kill intruders?
 
Last edited:
Some people should have guns, others shouldn't. Here's a story about one who should, and did:

(ABC News) - A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.
Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.
On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.
Click to expand...
 
The Constitution actually says the purpose of allowing firearms is to have an available militia in the event of a foreign invasion or otherwise needing a military at a time when the country had essentially no standing army nor anticipating maintaining one. As a literal interpretation, the government could outlaw any usage, display or unsecured firearm unless a militia is called up. People who push their rights as strictly constitutional right to have any weapon they want for any reason they want have a losing argument. Constitutional qualifier is ONLY for "militia" usage.

While I support gun ownership and as a fundamental human right to self defense, I also believe proof of competency and knowledge of relevant laws should go along with it. Too many people die by accidents and too many truly stupid, firearm's incompetent and demented people have firearms that have no potential of being used to defend themselves, but only stupidly and in ways that will wrongly hurt others and themselves.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
So, the question is not so much one of supporting the Second Amendment, as it is where my freedom ends and yours begins.
Click to expand...
That's your question, not mine. I am a supporter of the second, you are making the argument for things that can actually be limited. Every right has a limit, but there is a process for making sure that the limit is proper. Small arms limits are improper, ordnance limits are not, one does not equal the other.
Does it end with my possessing bombs and missiles?
Click to expand...
People can posess bombs, you have to have the correct license, don't know about missles but it is irrelevant to the right to possess arms. Bombs are not "arms" in the traditional sense and neither are missles or nukes, they are crew served ordnance, not individual weapons.
with my possessing automatic fire weapons? Assault rifles? rifles that hold more rounds than someone else thinks is OK? with my having a handgun in the car? with my possession of a hunting rifle? with my carrying it around loaded? Just where?
Click to expand...
The possession of such hurts no one, and it isn't their business how large your ammunition capacity is, cars are not protected rights, I don't give a **** what someone thinks about my exercise of a right(this includes politiicians), the right to bear means the right to carry.
My point: The Second Amendment is not absolute, and can not be. it has to be interpreted in the context of the 21st. century. It is not, therefore, a matter of "supporting" it or not, but of agreeing on just how far it really goes.
Click to expand...
Therefore, people who don't want to take it as far as you aren't anti second amendment, just anti your point of view.[/QUOTE] No right is absolute, but they have a very large scope of protection, small arms of any capacity and rate of fire are protected, crew served weapons are not. Anti-gunners don't have a good counter.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Exactly, just like Freedom of Speech can (and should) have limits so can (and should) the Right to Bear Arms. Consequently, the idea that supporting limits is "anti-second amendment" or "anti-gun" is nonsensical. And as I said earlier, hopefully the lawmakers and judges responsible for determining those limits will consult with experts on the particular topic who have the most evidence based arguments.
Click to expand...
Everyone acknowledges it has limits. You are trying to set the line at the same place as the rest of the anti-second movement. This is what you aren't understanding.
 
LaMidRighter said:
That's your question, not mine. I am a supporter of the second, you are making the argument for things that can actually be limited. Every right has a limit, but there is a process for making sure that the limit is proper. Small arms limits are improper, ordnance limits are not, one does not equal the other.
People can posess bombs, you have to have the correct license, don't know about missles but it is irrelevant to the right to possess arms. Bombs are not "arms" in the traditional sense and neither are missles or nukes, they are crew served ordnance, not individual weapons.
The possession of such hurts no one, and it isn't their business how large your ammunition capacity is, cars are not protected rights, I don't give a **** what someone thinks about my exercise of a right(this includes politiicians), the right to bear means the right to carry.
Therefore, people who don't want to take it as far as you aren't anti second amendment, just anti your point of view.No right is absolute, but they have a very large scope of protection, small arms of any capacity and rate of fire are protected, crew served weapons are not. Anti-gunners don't have a good counter.
Click to expand...

Translation: Sure, there have to be limits, but anyone who wants to limit the Second amendment further than I want to is anti second amendment.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Bad example. The authorities who were supposed to keep him from doing harm, such as the sheriffs office dropped the ball. So basically that's yet another reason to drop "appeal to authority". The guns he had would not have been sold to him if it was reported to the feds that the kid was unstable, he already had a past conducive to barring firearms possession yet he "slipped through the cracks" due to the people that gun grabbers would empower to choose how I may exercise my rights, no thank you.
Click to expand...

I agree with tpd you don't make sense. Because he wasn't identified as a risk we should drop all attempts to regulate gun control, especially to unstable individuals. That's daffy.

You and TurtleHead want to allow more freedom to attain dangerous weapons and drugs because someone is going to attain them anyway? Why don't we just get rid of all Laws and have no deterrents to criminal behavior? You've either been dropped on your heads or you're anarchists. :2razz:
 
LaMidRighter said:
Everyone acknowledges it has limits. You are trying to set the line at the same place as the rest of the anti-second movement. This is what you aren't understanding.
Click to expand...
How does saying that mental health professionals should advise lawmakers and judges "setting the line as an anti-second movement".

Dittohead got it right. You attribute those who disagree with your line as "anti-second". That's incredibly dishonest.
 
joko104 said:
The Constitution actually says the purpose of allowing firearms is to have an available militia in the event of a foreign invasion or otherwise needing a military at a time when the country had essentially no standing army nor anticipating maintaining one. As a literal interpretation, the government could outlaw any usage, display or unsecured firearm unless a militia is called up. People who push their rights as strictly constitutional right to have any weapon they want for any reason they want have a losing argument. Constitutional qualifier is ONLY for "militia" usage.

While I support gun ownership and as a fundamental human right to self defense, I also believe proof of competency and knowledge of relevant laws should go along with it. Too many people die by accidents and too many truly stupid, firearm's incompetent and demented people have firearms that have no potential of being used to defend themselves, but only stupidly and in ways that will wrongly hurt others and themselves.
Click to expand...

an argument that finds no support in the documents contemporary to the Bill of rights, the theme underlying both the Bill of Rights and the concept of Natural law and rights that the USC was premised upon, nor the vast majority of law review articles examing the issue and lastly, your claim is contrary to the majority supreme court decisions.

accidental deaths are less that 1500 a year for 300+ million firearms and more than 80million gun owners. while the rate of gun ownership and the number of guns in the USA has increased the number of accidental shootings have DECLINED

and subjecting a right to testing is opening the door for those who want to erode the right to do so

yes, if you carry or own a gun you ought to seek training. if you vote you ought to understand the issues
 
Dittohead not! said:
Translation: Sure, there have to be limits, but anyone who wants to limit the Second amendment further than I want to is anti second amendment.
Click to expand...
No, there are specific tests for limiting a right. Prior restraint is not an acceptable test, basically that is saying something is too scary or dangerous to be legal, well, you have to prove more than that. Your fear of my guns is not my concern, nor the courts, nor the police or any politician what is a valid concern is if I abuse the right by 1) Making threats with said weaponry 2) Use them against someone without due cause, i.e. first and third party defense 3) Fail to properly regulate(i.e. maintain) my weaponry in a way that could threaten your rights. To my knowledge improperly stored guns won't do you any harm, ordnance however will which is why I do concede that things that blow up are the limit.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
How does saying that mental health professionals should advise lawmakers and judges "setting the line as an anti-second movement".

Dittohead got it right. You attribute those who disagree with your line as "anti-second". That's incredibly dishonest.
Click to expand...
Because mental health is a subjective science and politicians are barred from infringement. Not that difficult.
 
LaMidRighter said:
No, there are specific tests for limiting a right. Prior restraint is not an acceptable test, basically that is saying something is too scary or dangerous to be legal, well, you have to prove more than that. Your fear of my guns is not my concern, nor the courts, nor the police or any politician what is a valid concern is if I abuse the right by 1) Making threats with said weaponry 2) Use them against someone without due cause, i.e. first and third party defense 3) Fail to properly regulate(i.e. maintain) my weaponry in a way that could threaten your rights. To my knowledge improperly stored guns won't do you any harm, ordnance however will which is why I do concede that things that blow up are the limit.
Click to expand...

Bullets blow up, too. So do propane canisters and gasoline tanks, and even aerosol cans. Sounds to me as if you're arguing for prior restraint. Are you secretly anti second amendment?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Bullets blow up, too. So do propane canisters and gasoline tanks, and even aerosol cans. Sounds to me as if you're arguing for prior restraint. Are you secretly anti second amendment?
Click to expand...

Nonsensical argument is just that, nonsensical.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Bullets blow up, too. So do propane canisters and gasoline tanks, and even aerosol cans. Sounds to me as if you're arguing for prior restraint. Are you secretly anti second amendment?
Click to expand...
Not arguing for any of that at all, what I'm saying is you cannot ban something properly in the U.S. without having a very valid case. Ammunition is not ordnance, neither is a propane cannister or even aerosol cans, ammunition can blow up, but it isn't it's primary function, same with flamable materials. Ordnance has one function, detonate and destroy which is the reason it can be restricted. Improperly storing flamable household items might cause a minor fire or explosion, improperly storing a mortar round will cause a massive one, as well you can't really use most of the crew served weapons for an effective attack without injuring or killing innocents if used properly, unlike a firearm or sword or other small arms. So no, I am not at all sounding anti-second.
 
TurtleDude said:
anyone who has had any training in this area (as you and I have) know that it is suicide to engage someone who is in the act of deploying lethal force with NON lethal force/ True, if all you have available is a tazer, a can of mace or a rubber bullet, that is better than nothing but its moronic to limit your defensive options to such things. Non Lethal force was designed for LEOs in situations where they were dealing with beligerent, intoxicated or large numbers of disruptive indviduals, not people trying to kill them with effective weaponry.
Click to expand...

Many states outlaw tazers but allow handguns, concealed handgun permits and even open carry. It seems bizarre. The rationale is that Tazers are a rapist's weapon.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Because mental health is a subjective science and politicians are barred from infringement. Not that difficult.
Click to expand...
A paranoid schizophrenic with delusions and consistent threats of violence is not "subjectively" violent and I'm sure most psychiatrists would agree. An adult with the mental capacity of a 2 year old is also not subjectively incompetent. You don't seem to understand that mental health professionals aren't just guessing when they make diagnoses, commit patients and make other decisions. There are actual standards. Like grip said earlier, there should be limits to prevent people like Loughner from obtaining weapons.

Moreover, you do not seem to understand that limiting rights is not an infringement of rights.

Again, you see anyone who disagrees with you on limits as "anti-second" and that just isn't so.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
Not arguing for any of that at all, what I'm saying is you cannot ban something properly in the U.S. without having a very valid case.
Click to expand...
And mental health professionals can certainly make a valid case. You haven't proven that they can't.
 
joko104 said:
Many states outlaw tazers but allow handguns, concealed handgun permits and even open carry. It seems bizarre. The rationale is that Tazers are a rapist's weapon.
Click to expand...
I've seen a movement to ban pepper spray and mace, bean bag rounds, etc. It's almost like they want to test the less lethal bans first using odd logic to see where the line is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom