• 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
Once a felon, always a felon,

It is this mentality that keeps people felons. How can they change if you don't give them the chance to change? As it stands our society does not stand for people with convictions.
 
Truth be told, there are some stupid sumbitches out there who I wouldn't want to see with with a full auto. Uncle Sam deems it important to teach everyone to appropriately handle and fire weapons. You must qualify. Some people don't qualify! That's right. I doubt those people ever make it to full auto in training. You'd be an idiot not to weed them out first if you could.

The idea of giving some dickweed, who has no idea what the hell he is doing, the right to own a full auto assault rifle would make me uncomfortable. Sorry. There are ways to address the issue, I would be open to them, but just throwing the door open to everybody is not the answer I support.

Anyone who has fired an weapon on full auto certainly enjoyed getting the juiced on the thrill the first few times. After that it's not such a big deal. If you have to buy your own ammo, it damn sure isn't worth it.

Since when is your comfortableness a qualifier for someone to exercise a right?
 
It is this mentality that keeps people felons. How can they change if you don't give them the chance to change? As it stands our society does not stand for people with convictions.
Got numbers to support the idea that a "second chance" works to any degree?
 
Not a chance; in fact, I'd rather people aren't allowed to carry deadly weapons outside their own property. The idea of carrying around an automatic weapon, that goes so far above and beyond self defense and into the mass murderer realm. In what fantasy world is such a thing necessary for self defense? Why not just allow people WMDs then? I would never leave the house if everyone is carrying those around. The 2nd amendment was added during colonial days when a well-trained militia and even peasants owning firearms might be necessary to defend a fledgling country, that was in fact invaded soon after. It has no relevance to nowadays. A neighborhood having these weapons won't protect us from any 21st century military including our own. The only case for allowing even handguns is self defense against one assailant. Here is the FBI date on that:

Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.48

It seems that far more often than self defense, guns are used by accident (554) or for murder (11,493). Now imagine tossing automatic weapons into that.
 
Truth be told, there are some stupid sumbitches out there who I wouldn't want to see with a full auto.

Uncle Sam deems it important to teach everyone to appropriately handle and fire weapons. You must qualify. Some people don't qualify! That's right. I doubt those people ever make it to full auto in training. You'd be an idiot not to weed them out first if you could.

The idea of giving some dickweed, who has no idea what the hell he is doing, the right to own a full auto assault rifle would make me uncomfortable. Sorry. There are ways to address the issue, I would be open to them, but just throwing the door open to everybody is not the answer I support.

Anyone who has fired an weapon on full auto certainly enjoyed getting the juiced on the thrill the first few times. After that it's not such a big deal. If you have to buy your own ammo, it damn sure isn't worth it.

You can make the same argument about a semi auto shotgun

a 32 round uzi will discharge 32 lethal projectiles in about 1.5-2 seconds

an 8 shot semi auto loaded with #4 buck shot will discharge 8x32 lethal projectiles in 3 seconds

1.5 seconds=32 bullets

3 seconds-256 lethal projectiles

My Red Jack SAIGA 12 g with a 20 round drum magazine loaded with the same-6 seconds max-660 lethal projectiles

full auto sub gun 20 lethal projectiles a second

shotgun 66 lethal projectiles a second
 
Not a chance; in fact, I'd rather people aren't allowed to carry deadly weapons outside their own property. The idea of carrying around an automatic weapon, that goes so far above and beyond self defense and into the mass murderer realm. In what fantasy world is such a thing necessary for self defense? Why not just allow people WMDs then? I would never leave the house if everyone is carrying those around. The 2nd amendment was added during colonial days when a well-trained militia and even peasants owning firearms might be necessary to defend a fledgling country, that was in fact invaded soon after. It has no relevance to nowadays. A neighborhood having these weapons won't protect us from any 21st century military including our own. The only case for allowing even handguns is self defense against one assailant. Here is the FBI date on that:

Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.48

It seems that far more often than self defense, guns are used by accident (554) or for murder (11,493). Now imagine tossing automatic weapons into that.

Link? and perhaps retype your post so it makes sense?
 
Not a chance; in fact, I'd rather people aren't allowed to carry deadly weapons outside their own property. The idea of carrying around an automatic weapon, that goes so far above and beyond self defense and into the mass murderer realm. In what fantasy world is such a thing necessary for self defense? Why not just allow people WMDs then? I would never leave the house if everyone is carrying those around. The 2nd amendment was added during colonial days when a well-trained militia and even peasants owning firearms might be necessary to defend a fledgling country, that was in fact invaded soon after. It has no relevance to nowadays. A neighborhood having these weapons won't protect us from any 21st century military including our own. The only case for allowing even handguns is self defense against one assailant. Here is the FBI date on that:

Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable.48

It seems that far more often than self defense, guns are used by accident (554) or for murder (11,493). Now imagine tossing automatic weapons into that.


this argument forgets that most actions of self defense do not involve the criminal being killed



we don't fight the military if the crap hits the fan

you shoot the people in charge who started the crap. how long would a dictator last if 10 million people with 30-06 deer rifles with and 6-14 power scopes wanted him dead? there are more than a few people out there who can reliably kill someone at 800-1200 meters with such a weapon
 
Link? and perhaps retype your post so it makes sense?

He confuses murder with justifiable homicide. that sort of mistake is fatal to making a valid point
 
Got numbers to support the idea that a "second chance" works to any degree?

How can there be? Society does not give second chances. But I do know for a fact that if you have a felony charge it is 20 times harder to get a good, steady paying job, no matter your other qualifications. For this reason people often have to fall back into old ways in order to make ends meet.
 
Can shoot how far with a 'deer' rifle?

The relatively few who can use a specially made LR rifle to hit, first round, because security won't let you get a second clear shot, out past 600 yards is so limited the few are well known. Couple that with having to work into position to be able to take that shot and the odds favor the dictator.

Now 10 million rifles sounds impressive, but 5 million of those rifles will stay in the hall closet, it is one thing to shoot Bambi, another to get shoot at first and with a lot more than a deer rifle. That leaves 5 million spread across the nation and the 'oppressors' can just roll through always having the advantage in fire power and protection.

You gather any significant number of 'patriots' in anyone place and napalm sticks to babies! Hide in the brush and thermal imaging lights you up. This isn't Fred's ShotGun News column, real world the civilian rebels will be target practice for professional troops.

Better to vote than depend on civilian revolt.
 
I'm curious, why exactly is it that the second amendment is viewed as magically immune to any and all regulation, whereas no other amendment is treated the same way? The first amendment says "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", yet they do, and to suggest that every single rule that governs speech is wrong is absurd. The war on drugs is founded entirely on infringements of the fourth amendment. It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed, not the convenience to do so completely unregulated. Why is only the second amendment somehow immune to the same limitations as the rest of the bill of rights?
 
I'm curious, why exactly is it that the second amendment is viewed as magically immune to any and all regulation, whereas no other amendment is treated the same way? The first amendment says "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", yet they do, and to suggest that every single rule that governs speech is wrong is absurd. The war on drugs is founded entirely on infringements of the fourth amendment. It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed, not the convenience to do so completely unregulated. Why is only the second amendment somehow immune to the same limitations as the rest of the bill of rights?

Probably because it is essentially an emergency insurance policy to help maintain all the rest.
 
How can there be? Society does not give second chances. But I do know for a fact that if you have a felony charge it is 20 times harder to get a good, steady paying job, no matter your other qualifications. For this reason people often have to fall back into old ways in order to make ends meet.

Not sure what old ways mean, go back to crime?
I see lots of landscapers, bug and weed spray trucks, pool cleaners, carpet cleanrs, etc. out there.. Start a small business, lots of them require very little in the way of upfront expenses. Getting bonded might be an issue depending on the nature of the felony.
But looking for help from the society that doesn't trust the felon is a waste of time. Society isn't the problem near as much as the attitude of the person who has the felony record. I have a relative who went to prison twice, and is out now, hopefully for good. He stole money from people, long story short. Relatives have tried to help him get his head out of his arse, but he has been stubborn.
Even when society does try to help, eventually society gives up on certain people, those who gave up on themselves a long time ago....
 
Probably because it is essentially an emergency insurance policy to help maintain all the rest.

Discourse has done more to create and protect our rights than weapons ever could. Words are often the tool to topple violent oppressors, who use their weapons to enslave others. If all the gun owners in this country fight the US army, it wouldn't end terribly well for the citizens of this land. It wasn't weapons that brought legal equality among races in this country, nor the rights of women. The people of India drove out the British, the mightiest empire in the world, without taking up arms. Violence doesn't change the world for the better. Even the revolution that forged this country would have been meaningless if not for the words that went along with it. American freedom and democracy weren't created with guns, but with a pen and parchment.
 
Discourse has done more to create and protect our rights than weapons ever could. Words are often the tool to topple violent oppressors, who use their weapons to enslave others. If all the gun owners in this country fight the US army, it wouldn't end terribly well for the citizens of this land. It wasn't weapons that brought legal equality among races in this country, nor the rights of women.

You should be aware of the power the government gained with the civil rights bill and giving women rights. Are you saying you think the government didn't get something in exchange? I think you should reconsider that.
 
Is there anyone who actually believes that the commerce clause is a proper delegation of power to the federal government to regulate small arms in violation of the 2nd and Tenth Amendments? because if you believe the federal government should so regulate you will have to make that argument

Yes, I do believe that the commerce clause would give the Congress the authority to regulate the kinds of weapons that are allowed to be manufactured and purchased by civilians-- if said regulation were not specifically and expressly prohibited by the Second Amendment.
 
Discourse has done more to create and protect our rights than weapons ever could.
Not correct. The Revolutionary war was not won with words, it was won with cannons, guns, and guerilla warfare. The king of England didn't give two ****s that the founders asserted their rights on paper, matter of fact he sent ships full of men with cannons, guns, swords, and a willingness to suppress those issuing the words. The storming of the Bastille was not done with discourse, it was done with weapons. The last time a group of teenagers tried to topple the regime in China with words was Tiennamin square, tanks and men with guns quickly ended that discourse.
 
Yes, I do believe that the commerce clause would give the Congress the authority to regulate the kinds of weapons that are allowed to be manufactured and purchased by civilians-- if said regulation were not specifically and expressly prohibited by the Second Amendment.
It technically wouldn't, but the clause has been gravely mis-interpreted over the last century. Thankfully the second is there to prevent further intrusion using the ninth and tenth revisionism.
 
You should be aware of the power the government gained with the civil rights bill and giving women rights. Are you saying you think the government didn't get something in exchange? I think you should reconsider that.
Without problems created by idiots there would be fewer laws and regulations. Recent example: idiots text and talk on cell phones while driving, traffic injuries and fatalities rise. Result: government creates new laws banning texting while driving and limiting other cell phone use while driving.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious, why exactly is it that the second amendment is viewed as magically immune to any and all regulation, whereas no other amendment is treated the same way? The first amendment says "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", yet they do, and to suggest that every single rule that governs speech is wrong is absurd. The war on drugs is founded entirely on infringements of the fourth amendment. It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed, not the convenience to do so completely unregulated. Why is only the second amendment somehow immune to the same limitations as the rest of the bill of rights?

Your premise seems to be faulty. What makes you think any of those things are constitutional?
 
The idiots who were discriminating created a problem that the government stepped in to solve. Without problems created by idiots there would be fewer regulations. Recent example: idiots text and talk on cell phones while driving, traffic injuries and fatalities rise. Result: government creates new laws banning texting while driving and limiting other cell phone use while driving.
Well, hold on Mo. Not to get off topic but the idiots of the old south, while they did create a problem, did so as a political reaction that dates back to abuses of the prior century. There were a lot of unresolved problems from reconstruction which unfortunately led to a race war, it doesn't excuse the unfair Jim Crowe and other race based statutes, but both north and south had blood on their hands on the race issue. I don't want to get off topic, just my 2 cents.
 
The idiots who were discriminating created a problem that the government stepped in to solve.

Oh so you are claiming they cared about this problem and that this problem was solved without violating the rights of other people in the process. You also appear to be claiming that discrimination from lets say shopping at a store is a violation of someones rights. You seem to believe in many things you are told.


Without problems created by idiots there would be fewer regulations. Recent example: idiots text and talk on cell phones while driving, traffic injuries and fatalities rise. Result: government creates new laws banning texting while driving and limiting other cell phone use while driving.

Oh so all texting while driving causing someone to get in an accident and kill someone. Are you saying they didn't violate rights of people by passing laws against texting while driving?

You know the more you talk of regulation the more you walk into where I want. Keep going though. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Your premise seems to be faulty. What makes you think any of those things are constitutional?
That's the thing I cannot understand, the stance of "well, we've infringed other rights, let's just infringe on one I don't respect as well". The other thing most people fail to understand about the limits of certain rights is that the limits are on abuse, not exercise.

For instance: Speech - If it offends it is most likely protected, if it provably harms it is not(incitement to violence, fighting words, libel, slander, defamation); Commerce - That which is not in conflict of a good faith agreement should be protected(fraud, negligence, and bad faith dealings are not); gun rights - Owning a weapon harms no one, negligent or malicious use do.
 
Oh so you are claiming they cared about this problem and that this problem was solved without violating the rights of other people in the process. You also appear to be claiming that discrimination from lets say shopping at a store is a violation of someones rights. You seem to believe in many things you are told.

Oh so all texting while driving causing someone to get in an accident and kill someone. Are you saying they didn't violate rights of people by passing laws against texting while driving?

You know the more you talk of regulation the more you walk into where I want. Keep going though. :cool:
I am aware that many Libertarians think all laws are a form of punishment. I will not argue the obvious disadvantages of anarchy with you.
 
Without problems created by idiots there would be fewer laws and regulations.

this is sadly a misreading. Without incentive structures that reward government bureaucrats and congress critters for creating but not removing laws and regulations, there would be fewer laws and regulations.
 
Back
Top Bottom