• 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
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?
Speech can be more dangerous. A crazed man with a gun can only kill what he can get to, dictators historically have killed millions using rhetoric throughout the 1900s alone.
 
You were not referring to changing it, but to letting them decide.

Yes. ON THE QUESTION OF GUN RIGHTS.

You certainly won't me see claiming Americans should be free to decide to violate basic human rights, including women rights or oppressive government.

Why do I still bother debating with that troll anyway? I don't know it.
 
Judge not that ye be not judged.

Judge not unrighteously that ye not be judged so. As long as I judge righteously (objectively), then I've no fear of reciprical. Learn your script. Are you proposing that the Bible is anti-judge?
 
Last edited:
I’ve been thinking about this, but not reading the posts. My understanding is that the Supreme Court has decided that an individual is a militia. Kal'Stang, Baralis, Bob Blaylock, and coolwalker have come to know that Obama is the Greatest Traitor in U.S. History. And we all know what we should do with traitors. Also, I’m in AZ now, where we are having an anniversary of the attempted killing of an Obama Traitor that is informative of how effective the Supreme Court’s interpretation of militia can be. So this being the situation we’re in, who is going to do what the second amendment is intended for? Kal'Stang, Baralis, Bob Blaylock, or coolwalker maybe?
 
Judge not unrighteously that ye not be judged so. As long as I judge righteously (objectively), then I've no fear of reciprical. Learn your script. Are you proposing that the Bible is anti-judge?
God will judge. Man is not righteous, and so can't judge righteously.
 
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.

In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides. Of these, 8,503 were committed with handguns. Among handgun homicides, only 193 (2.3 percent) were classified as justifiable homicides by civilians.
For every time in 1997 that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone.
source: VPC - Handgun Ban Fact Sheet

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths. In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified. Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities compared with robberies where other weapons were used.
source: Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.

That's obvious. The majority that do not carry would most certainly not like to have someone pull a handgun on them, just ask them.

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.

Yeah, they're pro 2nd amendment as am I, not necessarily pro handgun. Though a majority polled in this country would probably support handgun ownership because as I have stated earlier, they exist and nobody wants someone else to have exclusive control over their rights. I also said "let the courts decide".
 
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.
If they had intended that we not be allowed the use of handguns, the 2nd Amendment would have an additional statement, something like: “Except for (description of handguns/pistols), which no one is allowed to keep or bear".

It doesn’t.
 
If they had intended that we not be allowed the use of handguns, the 2nd Amendment would have an additional statement, something like: “Except for (description of handguns/pistols), which no one is allowed to keep or bear".

It doesn’t.

quoting the VPC on gun issues as our new poster has is akin to quoting Osama Bin Laden on the greatness of America. VPC is not only a dishonest propaganda center, they are aggressive liars
 
If they had intended that we not be allowed the use of handguns, the 2nd Amendment would have an additional statement, something like: “Except for (description of handguns/pistols), which no one is allowed to keep or bear".

It doesn’t.

The handgun was a freakin musket loading flintlock that very few owned or could afford. It wasn't an issue at the time because the Peacemaker and Colt 1911 were 100 years away. What was someone gonna do back then, run up to the local WalMart pull out their one shot dueler and say, "Hey, give me all your doubloons and some of that dar Prince Albert in a can". They'd have been beaten like a redheaded stepchild.
 
quoting the VPC on gun issues as our new poster has is akin to quoting Osama Bin Laden on the greatness of America. VPC is not only a dishonest propaganda center, they are aggressive liars

I imagine anyone I quote short of 'Action America' would be called dishonest. Ever hear this story from the local police "don't keep a handgun in your home for protection because most likely a robber will disarm and shoot you with your own pistola bang, bang"? No sirree I'm gonna listen to the Law, cuzz I don't wanna be shot with my own bang, bang! :lamo
 
I imagine anyone I quote short of 'Action America' would be called dishonest. Ever hear this story from the local police "don't keep a handgun in your home for protection because most likely a robber will disarm and shoot you with your own pistola bang, bang"? No sirree I'm gonna listen to the Law, cuzz I don't wanna be shot with my own bang, bang! :lamo

I guess you are not familiar with head asshole Josh Sugarman of the VPC. this is the turd who sent out a paper to left wing media outlets telling them that the public can easily be confused if the MSM would show pictures of machine guns and then push for the banning of assault "weapons"

He created the hysteria over weapons that were rarely used in crime

when the Clinton magazine ban was instituted in 1994-partially due to the efforts of asswipe Sugarman, gun makers started making smaller pistols-after all why build a weapon designed to hold 17 rounds when 10 was the legal limit

Sugartard then started complaining that gun makers were making "pocket rockets" that were "easier to conceal?"

one of his chief toadies-another schmuck named Tom Diaz is one of the leading liars on "sniper rifles"

that turd defines sniper rifles so that the term encompasses most big game hunting rifles.



YOu are clueless about guns grip and just because you are afraid of guns and appear to be unable to handle one properly, please don't project your lack of training onto someone like me. The last mope who tried to disarm me got a 9mm colonoscopy and three years in State Max
 
The handgun was a freakin musket loading flintlock that very few owned or could afford. It wasn't an issue at the time because the Peacemaker and Colt 1911 were 100 years away. What was someone gonna do back then, run up to the local WalMart pull out their one shot dueler and say, "Hey, give me all your doubloons and some of that dar Prince Albert in a can". They'd have been beaten like a redheaded stepchild.
So were all the OTHER firearms. Muzzle loading smoothbore muskets or occasionally rifled muskets that took even longer to load because no one had thought up the Minié ball yet, requiring the user to force the musket ball down into the rifling groves.

By that measurement, all modern weapons should be banned.

But as I understand the intent (though I could be wrong), the goal of the 2nd Amendment was to place a check against the possibility of government run amuck.
Since the military weaponry at the time was also muzzle-loaded and in most respects identical to hunting firearms and such (one of the reasons a revolution succeeded, probably, was that the English forces didn’t have much of an advantage in weapon tech), allowing the people to have those same weapons would provide such.

By that measure, one could (and some do) argue that all military weaponry should be available for purchase by civilians. Personally, I think owning a nuclear warhead would be unnecessary, unless you’re doing asteroid mining or some such…
 
I guess you are not familiar with head asshole Josh Sugarman of the VPC. this is the turd who sent out a paper to left wing media outlets telling them that the public can easily be confused if the MSM would show pictures of machine guns and then push for the banning of assault "weapons"

He created the hysteria over weapons that were rarely used in crime

when the Clinton magazine ban was instituted in 1994-partially due to the efforts of asswipe Sugarman, gun makers started making smaller pistols-after all why build a weapon designed to hold 17 rounds when 10 was the legal limit

Sugartard then started complaining that gun makers were making "pocket rockets" that were "easier to conceal?"

one of his chief toadies-another schmuck named Tom Diaz is one of the leading liars on "sniper rifles"

that turd defines sniper rifles so that the term encompasses most big game hunting rifles.



YOu are clueless about guns grip and just because you are afraid of guns and appear to be unable to handle one properly, please don't project your lack of training onto someone like me. The last mope who tried to disarm me got a 9mm colonoscopy and three years in State Max

I don't believe in that kind of sneaky propaganda or overly restrictive limits either. But that particular info I sourced is all over the Net regardless of the claims on authenticity.

I am afraid of guns but not exactly clueless about them either. I think the day you don't respect how fast a firearm can send you to the promise land you're in trouble. You don't really know anything about me except the little bits of comments I've made. I could've been a LRRP for all you know.
 
I don't believe in that kind of sneaky propaganda or overly restrictive limits either. But that particular info I sourced is all over the Net regardless of the claims on authenticity.

I am afraid of guns but not exactly clueless about them either. I think the day you don't respect how fast a firearm can send you to the promise land you're in trouble. You don't really know anything about me except the little bits of comments I've made. I could've been a LRRP for all you know.

there is almost nothing about guns that I am unaware of. Its the sort of knowledge you get growing up in the home of a guy who was the HS national shotgun champion, a college varsity rifle champion, and who hunted all over the world. Me, a few national titles, a bunch of all-american teams, a few olympic trials finals, world championship top 10 finishes, and over 750,000 rounds out of handguns.

I am not afraid of guns, cars, chain saws, or the 5000 dollar razor sharp hand forged katana that sits by the side of my nightstand. I have a healthy respect for all such tools
 
So were all the OTHER firearms. Muzzle loading smoothbore muskets or occasionally rifled muskets that took even longer to load because no one had thought up the Minié ball yet, requiring the user to force the musket ball down into the rifling groves.

By that measurement, all modern weapons should be banned.

But as I understand the intent (though I could be wrong), the goal of the 2nd Amendment was to place a check against the possibility of government run amuck.
Since the military weaponry at the time was also muzzle-loaded and in most respects identical to hunting firearms and such (one of the reasons a revolution succeeded, probably, was that the English forces didn’t have much of an advantage in weapon tech), allowing the people to have those same weapons would provide such.

By that measure, one could (and some do) argue that all military weaponry should be available for purchase by civilians. Personally, I think owning a nuclear warhead would be unnecessary, unless you’re doing asteroid mining or some such…

Yeah, but most pistols were for dueling because they had no accuracy or range. All weapons may be banned one day. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, sound familiar?

I absolutely agree with your comprehension for the reason of the 2nd Amendment about keeping the government in check. Yep, the Kentucky long rifle helped us beat the Brits with it's range and accuracy. We didn't fight fair either..lol. We kept doing hit and run tactics that flipped their lids.

No I don't believe in letting people have anything they want though you'd be amazed what they can get their hands on. My only point was there needs to be a combination of allowance and regulation enforcement.
 
there is almost nothing about guns that I am unaware of. Its the sort of knowledge you get growing up in the home of a guy who was the HS national shotgun champion, a college varsity rifle champion, and who hunted all over the world. Me, a few national titles, a bunch of all-american teams, a few olympic trials finals, world championship top 10 finishes, and over 750,000 rounds out of handguns.

I am not afraid of guns, cars, chain saws, or the 5000 dollar razor sharp hand forged katana that sits by the side of my nightstand. I have a healthy respect for all such tools

Sounds like you're well trained and responsible. I wish that everyone who had access to weapons were but that's unfortunately not the world we live in.
 
Sounds like you're well trained and responsible. I wish that everyone who had access to weapons were but that's unfortunately not the world we live in.

and I wish everyone who votes is as well educated on the issues as the better posters on this board but that will never be the case but the cost of limiting voting to what some think is proper is more dangerous than letting dullards vote as is limiting the constitutional right to KBA to people like me who are world class shots and have lectured police training classes on "use of force" issues
 
Yeah, but most pistols were for dueling because they had no accuracy or range. All weapons may be banned one day. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, sound familiar?

I absolutely agree with your comprehension for the reason of the 2nd Amendment about keeping the government in check. Yep, the Kentucky long rifle helped us beat the Brits with it's range and accuracy. We didn't fight fair either..lol. We kept doing hit and run tactics that flipped their lids.

No I don't believe in letting people have anything they want though you'd be amazed what they can get their hands on. My only point was there needs to be a combination of allowance and regulation enforcement.
Firstly, it's impossible to ban all weapons, since anything up to and including a completely naked human can be a weapon under the right circumstances.

Therefore, you ban the improper use of such. As we already do.

Yep, the revoloutionary forces weren't as stuck in their ways as the british forces.


I agree that letting people have anything they want is too much - but I think that any bans or tight restrictions on handguns, shotguns, or rifles of any type are also too much (the other way).

And everything else should be under increasing restriction/requirement comparable with it's lethality.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, it's impossible to ban all weapons, since anything up to and including a completely naked human can be a weapon under the right circumstances.

Therefore, you ban the improper use of such. As we already do.

Yep, the revoloutionary forces weren't as stuck in their ways as the british forces.


I agree that letting people have anything they want is too much - but I think that any bans or tight restrictions on handguns, shotguns, or rifles of any type are also too much (the other way).

And everything else should be under increasing restriction/requirement comparable with it's lethality.

the starting point for the argument as to what is too much has not been reached

clearly all law abiding citizens should be able to own what our own tax dollars supplies CIVILIAN law enforcement agents.

once we all can own submachine guns, 50 caliber long range "target interdiction" rifles and real assault rifles (all of which have been determined to be useful for CIVILIANS to protect them selves with in URBAN environments by various GOVERNMENTAL units) we can then argue whether NON MILITARY voters should be able to own belt fed heavy machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, hand held anti-tank rockets, STRELAS, and RPGs
 
the starting point for the argument as to what is too much has not been reached

clearly all law abiding citizens should be able to own what our own tax dollars supplies CIVILIAN law enforcement agents.

once we all can own submachine guns, 50 caliber long range "target interdiction" rifles and real assault rifles (all of which have been determined to be useful for CIVILIANS to protect them selves with in URBAN environments by various GOVERNMENTAL units) we can then argue whether NON MILITARY voters should be able to own belt fed heavy machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, hand held anti-tank rockets, STRELAS, and RPGs

Do you remember the North Hollywood shootout where the two guys who had the body armor and automatic weapons held off police? That's what scares me about having unlimited access to firepower for your average cuckoo individuals or even criminal gangs.

Here's a signature for you TurtleDude... God didn't make all men equal, Smith & Wesson did.
 
Last edited:
I love the overwhelming support for the 2nd Amendment.
 
God will judge. Man is not righteous, and so can't judge righteously.

Yet, God provided Judges. You're taking it too literally. It's not a free pass to ignore crime.
 
Do you remember the North Hollywood shootout where the two guys who had the body armor and automatic weapons held off police? That's what scares me about having unlimited access to firepower for your average cuckoo individuals or even criminal gangs.

Here's a signature for you TurtleDude... God didn't make all men equal, Smith & Wesson did.
Here's where the possibility came about. The police in that instance were taken by surprise and thus under equipped for the mission. The AK-47s didn't actually give the bad guys an advantage, the rapid fire was effective in suppression of the police, but they probably still had the basic uniform with level 1 BPVs, most rifles will penetrate those vests. By the time reinforcements arrived the criminals were "dug in" so they had a tactical advantage, more cover, etc. It wasn't the weapons they used but rather it was the will to hold off the underarmed and surprised police.
 
Do you remember the North Hollywood shootout where the two guys who had the body armor and automatic weapons held off police? That's what scares me about having unlimited access to firepower for your average cuckoo individuals or even criminal gangs.

Here's a signature for you TurtleDude... God didn't make all men equal, Smith & Wesson did.

You mean two guys who used ILLEGAL machine guns after they PREMEDITATED felony robbery and attempted murder? GUNS THAT WERE BANNED UNDER FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA LAW?

yeah those laws were effective-only the scumbags had that stuff
 
Back
Top Bottom