• 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!

constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

Support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership?


  • Total voters
    35

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you support a constitutional amendment that guarantees all citizens who are not convicted felons the right to own fully automatic assault weapons? It would be meant to amend or clarify the second amendment.
 
Do you support a constitutional amendment that guarantees all citizens who are not convicted felons the right to own fully automatic assault weapons? It would be meant to amend or clarify the second amendment.

The second already protects everyones right to own fully automatic assault weapons convicted felon or not. I'm not about to support something that is effectively a limit on the second.
 
Last edited:
The second already protects everyones right to own fully automatic assault weapons convicted felon or not. I'm not about to support something that is effectively a limit on the second.

Would you support it if it didn't block felons from owning full auto assault weapons? The problem with the 2nd Amendment is people can correctly claim that assault rifles did not exist at the time the amendment was written. Then they can incorrectly infer that that fact means no one has the right to own an assault rifle. This amendment could clear that up.
 
Absolutely not. If you're going to go to the trouble of drumming up support for an Amendment to somehow update the 2nd for modern times then there should be no limits at all. In short, you're thinking too small for my taste.
 
Why stop at convicted felons? Or are they still criminals after they´ve served their time and repaid their debt to society? I´ll never understand how people can be so in favor of gun ownership as long as we get to deny big bag former criminals from being citizens with every right again.
 
Would you support it if it didn't block felons from owning full auto assault weapons? The problem with the 2nd Amendment is people can correctly claim that assault rifles did not exist at the time the amendment was written. Then they can incorrectly infer that that fact means no one has the right to own an assault rifle. This amendment could clear that up.

The Second Amendment is clear enough, exactly as it is written.

Government refuses to fully obey it.

I don't believe that another amendment, to “clarify” the Second Amendment, would change anything. If government will not obey the Second Amendment now, as it presently stands, then there is no reason to suppose that they will obey it when the new amendment which you propose is ratified.

The solution will never be to change the Constitution to “clarify” parts of it that the government openly refuses to obey. Any real solution would have to involve somehow compelling government to obey the Constitution as it now stands.
 
TO be honest...I just dont know bout this one...Im all for gun ownership...but I pause at full automatic ownership....I believe there has to be some limits in a society...Police must retain the ability to protect the public....
 
The Second Amendment is clear enough, exactly as it is written.

Government refuses to fully obey it.

I don't believe that another amendment, to “clarify” the Second Amendment, would change anything. If government will not obey the Second Amendment now, as it presently stands, then there is no reason to suppose that they will obey it when the new amendment which you propose is ratified.

The solution will never be to change the Constitution to “clarify” parts of it that the government openly refuses to obey. Any real solution would have to involve somehow compelling government to obey the Constitution as it now stands.

Well it is an amendment that did NOT age well. If we were limited to 18th century arms there wouldn’t be an issue. But nowadays what constitutes the arms that a private citizen should be allowed to bear? An AK-47? Land mines? Hand grenades? RPGs? Biological weapons? Should billionaires be allowed to own their own nuclear arsenal or bunker busters? Should Apple and Microsoft be allowed to mount AA armaments on the roofs of their buildings?

The government, as do most of us, draws a line somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Well it is an amendment that did NOT age well. If we were limited to 18th century arms there wouldn’t be an issue. But nowadays what constitutes the arms that a private citizen should be allowed to bear? An AK-47? Land mines? Hand grenades? RPGs? Biological weapons? Should billionaires be allowed to own their own nuclear arsenal or bunker busters? Should Apple and Microsoft be allowed to mount AA armaments on the roofs of their buildings?

The government, as do most of us, draws a line somewhere.

You should do a search before posting this kind of answer. We've gone through all these silly notions, and are well beyond this in the discussion. Whatever a soldier is allowed to carry is considered the definition of arms.
 
I believe we already have such an amendment.
 
The Constitution was written in a way that makes it timeless.
If you were to put in specific language, it would require an amendment every couple of decades.
 
You should do a search before posting this kind of answer. We've gone through all these silly notions, and are well beyond this in the discussion. Whatever a soldier is allowed to carry is considered the definition of arms.

When I do a search I find no such consensus among DP members. But even if there were, and you remove the nukes, bunker busters, and AA, everything else I mention can be deployed by a soldier. And that is still a very scary scenario for most people.
 
This sounds like something the tea-bagging conservatives are in favor of.
This is exactly opposite the direction we should be in, if we really want peace....I have my doubts...

The problem is, many conservatives have no trust in their government...And history proves them to be correct.

Our government needs much greater participation of the people, IMO.
Its a matter of interest and caring, NOT guns and ammo.
 
Last edited:
I'm really not sure about this one. I have friends that have had their semis converted to full auto using a small gunsmith's mod kit. They're illegal as Hell, but only for some people (law abider).

My only doubts stem from the people that are relatively new to guns that don't exhibit proper safety measures (like my buddy Hap Hazard).

But hey, if that doesn't scare anyone else, I'll put my paranoia aside and say Yes, they should be legal.

But then, others have stated that the 2nd amendment already allows for auto weapons. So has anyone ever challenged making autos illegal? That would probably cost a fortune in attorney fees. Would the Supremes rule in their favor?

I guess I'll vote No, the 2nd already allows for militia weaponry.
 
Do you support a constitutional amendment that guarantees all citizens who are not convicted felons the right to own fully automatic assault weapons? It would be meant to amend or clarify the second amendment.

I don't see an amendment as necessary as we already have the 2nd amendment. It just needs to be properly upheld instead of whittled away to nothing.

Also, felons once they have completed the full of their punishment period, should be allowed to own guns again.
 
Well it is an amendment that did NOT age well. If we were limited to 18th century arms there wouldn’t be an issue.

Somehow I doubt you would want Americans owning rockets, canons, Ballista, bombs, grenades,Mortar, Hwacha, Ribauldequin, fire arrows or any other types of arms used around or before the constitution was written.
 
Do you support a constitutional amendment that guarantees all citizens who are not convicted felons the right to own fully automatic assault weapons? It would be meant to amend or clarify the second amendment.

The right to keep and bear arms applies to all Americans.It is blatantly unconstitutional for the government to infringe on the rights of Americans just because they served time behind bars and it is unconstitutional for the government to infringe on the types of arms someone can get. The 2nd amendment regarding the peoples right to keep an bear arms without any infringements is a restriction on the government. I would only support clarifying the 2nd amendment to include a punishment of ten years in prison and exile to the worst country on the planet for elected officials,appointed offcials, law enforcement, judges and anyone else who who attempt to subvert the constitution.
 
Do you support a constitutional amendment that guarantees all citizens who are not convicted felons the right to own fully automatic assault weapons? It would be meant to amend or clarify the second amendment.
No. The second is just one sentence and we can't even follow that without an argument.
 
This sounds like something the tea-bagging conservatives are in favor of.
This is exactly opposite the direction we should be in, if we really want peace....I have my doubts...

Only a lib-tard or occu-tard would see something wrong with trying to reenforce 2nd amendment rights.
The problem is, many conservatives have no trust in their government...And history proves them to be correct.

So do many liberals.But its funny that many of them want more government control.

Our government needs much greater participation of the people, IMO.

It needs a much greater participation of people who pay attention to politics.


Its a matter of interest and caring, NOT guns and ammo.

When the government decides to **** on other constitutional rights it is the guns and ammo that will get them back.Not protesting or voting because if the government can **** on the 2nd amendment it can most certainly **** on the 1st,14th,15th,19th,23rd,24th, and 26th amendments and anything else in the constitution regarding the right to vote,protests,free speech and peaceful assembly.
 
I don't see an amendment as necessary as we already have the 2nd amendment. It just needs to be properly upheld instead of whittled away to nothing.

Also, felons once they have completed the full of their punishment period, should be allowed to own guns again.
You do know what the recidivism rate is, do you not ?
And punishment has been shown NOT to be effective..
They. and all others, should only be allowed any gun ownership after they prove that their criminal past is indeed past, to my satsifaction..
Public security is far more important than so-called gun rights.
We are not living in the 1700s any more.....news flash to the conservatives.....and libertarians
 
You do know what the recidivism rate is, do you not ?
And punishment has been shown NOT to be effective..
They. and all others, should only be allowed any gun ownership after they prove that their criminal past is indeed past, to my satsifaction..
Public security is far more important than so-called gun rights.
We are not living in the 1700s any more.....news flash to the conservatives.....and libertarians

So you want to punish for future crime? Interesting, though I cannot agree. I think one can be held responsible for crimes they have committed; but not for ones they MAY commit. I suppose you and I differ there.

If the punishment is not "effective" change the punishment. That doesn't mean that government gets infinite power to punish for infinite time frames. The one and only proper infinite punishment which may be handed down by government is life in prison without parole. Beyond that, every punishment ends. And when punishment ends, the rights and liberties of the individual should be recognized once again.

We are not living in 1985 just yet....news flash to the progressives.
 
I just think people should be allowed to have all the weapons they want, but one irresponsble act and they should be banned from ownership.
 
Only a lib-tard or occu-tard would see something wrong with trying to reenforce 2nd amendment rights.


So do many liberals.But its funny that many of them want more government control.



It needs a much greater participation of people who pay attention to politics.....Of course, and I will add a lot more than a grade school education and a 2 digit IQ....even an idiot can pay attention...lol




When the government decides to **** on other constitutional rights it is the guns and ammo that will get them back.Not protesting or voting because if the government can **** on the 2nd amendment it can most certainly **** on the 1st,14th,15th,19th,23rd,24th, and 26th amendments and anything else in the constitution regarding the right to vote,protests,free speech and peaceful assembly.

Funny how filthy language and silly insults seem to fly from the "minds" of conservatives. We need to conduct ourselves using far more than the Bible and the Constitution. The writings of Charles Dickens and Victor Hugo for two, and ***surprise of surprises*** the Koran....really off the wall, I'll admit.

BTW, James, did you know that when one becomes emotional about a topic (guns), logic is blown to the winds ??
The **** = emotion.
 
When I do a search I find no such consensus among DP members. But even if there were, and you remove the nukes, bunker busters, and AA, everything else I mention can be deployed by a soldier. And that is still a very scary scenario for most people.

So they are scared, so what? Their fear doesn't make it wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom