• 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
ThePlayDrive said:
Everything that you just listed is an incredibly minimal sacrifice to me. You're talking about people being inconvenienced while purchasing a luxury item. People wait longer for much more important things.

In any case, you're missing my point about the death penalty. It's rare that an innocent person is executed, but those few lives are enough to make me not support the death penalty. It's also rare that a person needs a "cooling off" period to purchase a weapon, but those few people are enough to make me want a waiting period. Whether or not YOUR purchase puts my life at risk is irrelevant just like whether or not most death penalty criminals are guilty is irrelevant because I'm not making my decision based on you or them. I'm making my decision based on the rare cases.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with you going into a gun shop, purchasing a weapon, and telling the salesperson that you will pick it up in the morning. I'm fine with you attending a gun show, seeing something you like, and driving a few hundred miles to pick it up in a couple of days. I'm not fine with your desires that I do the same. Especially in view of the fact that there is nothing to indicate that these waits will prevent any criminal use of a gun. I do not consider guns to be a luxury item, but the last time I checked, I had no need to drop into a jewelery store or Ferrari dealership, purchase a diamond or a car, and come back in the morning and pick it up. There again, if that is your method of doing business, have at it.

I doubt that whether the cooling off period is the typical half day or the 24 hours you propose is going to make any difference in the the number of premeditated murders attributable to guns. A person hell bent on committing a crime that cannot wait a half day or 24 yours is going to get it illegally from the corner gun dealer, probably at less cost.

Your comment concerning whether or not I agree with your position concerning a wait period being of any relevance, that applies both ways.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You, like the ones you say are anti second amendment, are limiting it according to your own ideas. There is nothing in the amendment that says a word about ordinance, or about how much damage a particular arm might cause if improperly used. Your argument is the same as any other limiting the second amendment.
Click to expand...
I didn't set the necessary and proper test. The necessary and proper test is found in the legal writings of the founders and certain SCOTUS precedents. Necessary in this case(not my idea, it's the law, upheld) is that you cannot blow up your neighbors nor can you negligently endanger them of such. It's the same principle of my being allowed to carry my .40 but not fire it in my back yard, my rights end at another's nose. An automatic weapon sitting in a gun closet endangers no one, so owning it is not the same as owning highly explosive materials. Proper comes from necessity and taking the steps to prove so, again, not my idea it is based on precedent. Proper dictates that the necessary restrictions do not overly or arbitrarily infringe on one's rights and it can be proven that exercise of the right would endanger someone. Again, none of that is mine, these are things found in case law and as well they have been upheld to comply with the intent of the founders. It doesn't matter what I think.
 
JohnWOlin said:
I 100% support the 2nd amendment however, I do believe it should be limited to handguns and rifles, I don't believe our founders could have imagined the incredible technology gun makers have afforded us. I see no actual reason for a US citizen to own a machine gun.
Click to expand...

well that is because you are clearly ignorant about weapons and "actual reason" or "need" has nothing relevant to do with rights. I don't play golf therefore I could argue I see no need for anyone to own golf clubs
.
a "machine gun" was far more comprehensible in 1789 than the internet, high speed printing presses and satellite communications yet those devices are within the scope of the first amendment. the advances in communication technologies is many many times greater than firearms-which still involve a small explosion (priming powder, percussion cap or primer) igniting a charge of powder which in turn discharges a bullet. Indeed, prior to the Constitution being penned, there was a weapon called the "Puckle" gun that was a rapid fire weapon. Though it was not as fast as modern machine guns or engine driven gatling style guns, it certainly illustrated that advances in the rapidity of bullet discharge by a single weapon were on the horizon.

James Puckle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would note that almost every major city and every state issues 'machine guns' to civilian employees thus creating a rather strong estoppel argument against those same entities claiming that such weapons in the hands of civilians are an abomination or too dangerous
 
TurtleDude said:
well that is because you are clearly ignorant about weapons and "actual reason" or "need" has nothing relevant to do with rights. I don't play golf therefore I could argue I see no need for anyone to own golf clubs
.
a "machine gun" was far more comprehensible in 1789 than the internet, high speed printing presses and satellite communications yet those devices are within the scope of the first amendment. the advances in communication technologies is many many times greater than firearms-which still involve a small explosion (priming powder, percussion cap or primer) igniting a charge of powder which in turn discharges a bullet. Indeed, prior to the Constitution being penned, there was a weapon called the "Puckle" gun that was a rapid fire weapon. Though it was not as fast as modern machine guns or engine driven gatling style guns, it certainly illustrated that advances in the rapidity of bullet discharge by a single weapon were on the horizon.

James Puckle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would note that almost every major city and every state issues 'machine guns' to civilian employees thus creating a rather strong estoppel argument against those same entities claiming that such weapons in the hands of civilians are an abomination or too dangerous
Click to expand...

Constantly being hostile over issues never makes your points more clear. While you bring up a good point about telecommunications and such in the 1st amendment, the 1st amendment and the rights it carries alone does not give you ability to kill or severely injure a dozen+ people with one clip. As for civilian employees having full-automatic rifles in every single major city, please find me what you refer to for NYC, Jersey City, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville, Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco. I'm not going to doubt your claim, would just like to read about it myself.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Constantly being hostile over issues never makes your points more clear. While you bring up a good point about telecommunications and such in the 1st amendment, the 1st amendment and the rights it carries alone does not give you ability to kill or severely injure a dozen+ people with one clip. As for civilian employees having full-automatic rifles in every single major city, please find me what you refer to for NYC, Jersey City, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Louisville, Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco. I'm not going to doubt your claim, would just like to read about it myself.
Click to expand...

1) possession does not mean killing-

2) with a car of a can of gasoline you have the ability to kill far more people

3) you are unaware that police officers , IRS agents, sheriffs are CIVILIANS?

4) against unarmed innocents full auto is not "more deadly" than other common types of weapon actions
 
jimbo said:
I'm fine with you going into a gun shop, purchasing a weapon, and telling the salesperson that you will pick it up in the morning. I'm fine with you attending a gun show, seeing something you like, and driving a few hundred miles to pick it up in a couple of days. I'm not fine with your desires that I do the same. Especially in view of the fact that there is nothing to indicate that these waits will prevent any criminal use of a gun. I do not consider guns to be a luxury item, but the last time I checked, I had no need to drop into a jewelery store or Ferrari dealership, purchase a diamond or a car, and come back in the morning and pick it up. There again, if that is your method of doing business, have at it.
Click to expand...
Unless your job requires you to have a gun, then a gun is, by definition, a luxury item because you don't need it. And you're not being fine with it has nothing to do with my decision-making process. My decision making process isn't about you, it's about the few people who might die because someone needed to cool off and frankly they're a lot more important than someone with a patience problem.

I doubt that whether the cooling off period is the typical half day or the 24 hours you propose is going to make any difference in the the number of premeditated murders attributable to guns. A person hell bent on committing a crime that cannot wait a half day or 24 yours is going to get it illegally from the corner gun dealer, probably at less cost.

Your comment concerning whether or not I agree with your position concerning a wait period being of any relevance, that applies both ways.
Click to expand...
"Doubt" isn't good enough. Unless you're certain and you can show me that no one has ever done an impulsive gun purchase/murder/attempted murder, then my argument still stands. It just turns out that I care more about potential lives than impatient people.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Unless your job requires you to have a gun, then a gun is, by definition, a luxury item because you don't need it.
Click to expand...

hahaha. We don't NEED anything that our (government) job does not require!

hahaha
 
There is no poll option I feel comfortable with.

I'm very anti-gun and I am in favor of tight restriction. But I am not American and believe it's a matter up to Americans to decide what to do in America.

So it's not a simple "yes or no question" after all. :p
 
German guy said:
There is no poll option I feel comfortable with. I'm very anti-gun and I am in favor of tight restriction. But I am not American and believe it's a matter up to Americans to decide what to do in America. So it's not a simple "yes or no question" after all. :p
Click to expand...

Do you also believe that it is up to Insanians to decide what to do in Insania? What a cop-out... relative morality and all that. Don't judge me and I won't judge you = cowardice.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
hahaha. We don't NEED anything that our (government) job does not require!

hahaha
Click to expand...
Uh, that is not what I said. Try again. Actually don't because it isn't worth it.
 
I'm in complete agreement with the Second Amendment as long as only Law Enforcement and the Military get to have handguns, everyone else can have rifles.
 
grip said:
I'm in complete agreement with the Second Amendment as long as only Law Enforcement and the Military get to have handguns, everyone else can have rifles.
Click to expand...
That make NO sense.

Or at least, not currently...


Explain?
 
German guy said:
No. Not in general. But on this question, yes.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned... extremely relative morality, to the point of abandoning objective (or scientific) morality. On what other issues does the fox rule the henhouse? Let me guess... patriarchial misogynism, religious freedom and consentual abuse. Oh, and genocide (you'll claim Iraq was better under Saddam).
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
As I mentioned... extremely relative morality, to the point of abandoning objective morality. On what other issues do the fox rule the henhouse? Let me guess... patriarchial misogynism, religious freedom and consentual abuse. Oh, and genocide (you'll claim Iraq was better under Saddam).
Click to expand...

Hello?! What's wrong with you? Where did I say any of this? Please stop putting words in my mouth.

And yes, this is completely uncalled for. Or are you joking?

I'm a moral relativist who will justify stoning women to death, just because I believe Americans should decide about gun restrictions, instead of foreigners? WTF?

(And that's not the first time you attack me completely out of the blue. I have no idea why. I even agree with some things you say.)
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
That make NO sense.

Or at least, not currently...


Explain?
Click to expand...

Well, in 1790 when the 2nd Amendment was adopted along with the rest of the Bill of Rights it said "the right to keep and bear arms". It did not specify what kind and back then pistols were mostly for dueling for the few that could afford them or used in the military, so most likely the right to bear arms was intended for rifles, swords and knives. It's been argued here that the courts should set the necessary and proper test through SCOTUS precedents and case laws. Since handguns are almost exclusively used for shooting humans and concealment in violent crimes and far more people have been murdered with them than used in self defense, let the courts decide if the majority who are peaceful, do not wish to carry a deadly weapon should have their rights infringed upon by the minority of criminals and handgun right advocates.
 
grip said:
Well, in 1790 when the 2nd Amendment was adopted along with the rest of the Bill of Rights it said "the right to keep and bear arms". It did not specify what kind and back then pistols were mostly for dueling for the few that could afford them or used in the military, so most likely the right to bear arms was intended for rifles, swords and knives. It's been argued here that the courts should set the necessary and proper test through SCOTUS precedents and case laws. Since handguns are almost exclusively used for shooting humans and concealment in violent crimes and far more people have been murdered with them than used in self defense, let the courts decide if the majority who are peaceful, do not wish to carry a deadly weapon should have their rights infringed upon by the minority of criminals and handgun right advocates.
Click to expand...

Where are your sources for the statements that far more people have been murdered with gun than used in self defense? Particularly with legal guns. Criminals get, or make guns outside legal sources. Where is your source that the majority who are peaceful and do not wish to carry are having their rights infringed by handgun rights advocates. The most available source to this post is the starting poll, where 90% are pro second amendment and 10% anti. The forum seems to have a reasonable mix of participants from all sides.
 
German guy said:
(And that's not the first time you attack me completely out of the blue. I have no idea why. I even agree with some things you say.)
Click to expand...

I didn't attack you, I attacked moral relativity - a concept you were promoting. Don't get upset if you don't like the relatives of the position; reconsider the philosophy. How come every time I go after the relative morality in your arguments (and I do the same to everyone), you take it personally.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I didn't attack you, I attacked moral relativity - a concept you were promoting. Don't get upset if you don't like the relatives of the position; reconsider the philosophy.
Click to expand...

Maybe because the question of gun restrictions is not exactly a question where there are moral absolutes?

And when I make no compromises on the question of human rights, you don't like it either, you damn relativist.

*shakes head*

You know, I don't know what to make of you. One moment, you make a really smart statement, the next, you are acting like a ... whatever.
 
I don't like relative morality, and I see you promoting it (apologetically, nonetheless) sometimes. Don't take it personally, absolutes aside.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't like relative morality, and I see you promoting it (apologetically, nonetheless) sometimes. Don't take it personally, absolutes aside.
Click to expand...

It's a difference whether you condone what happens in a foreign country, or if you believe it's impossible/not feasible/not smart to interveen to change it, you know?

This "relativism" meme has really poisoned American debate, it seems.
 
How you equate the issue of gun ownership to morality is beyond me. The US Constitution isn't a morality document.
 
JohnWOlin said:
the 1st amendment and the rights it carries alone does not give you ability to kill or severely injure a dozen+ people with one clip.
Click to expand...

Not one clip, but you can certainly incite to riot. Hell in the 50's the anarchists openly preached revolt against the US government without being arrested (I think we need to go back to that). Every right can be abused. Given enough people, we will see it abused. Speech can be just as dangerous. The pen is mightier than the sword, yes?
 
German guy said:
It's a difference whether you condone what happens in a foreign country, or if you believe it's impossible/not feasible/not smart to interveen to change it, you know?
Click to expand...

You were not referring to changing it, but to letting them decide.

This "relativism" meme has really poisoned American debate, it seems.
Click to expand...

Your typical anti-US adhom.



joko104 said:
How you equate the issue of gun ownership to morality is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Self defense is a human right.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Do you also believe that it is up to Insanians to decide what to do in Insania? What a cop-out... relative morality and all that. Don't judge me and I won't judge you = cowardice.
Click to expand...

Judge not that ye be not judged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom