• 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!

How long will it take to repeal the 2nd amendment?

When do you think the 2nd amendment will be repealed?

  • within the year

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • next year

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5-10

    Votes: 4 5.2%
  • 10-20

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 20-50

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 50+

    Votes: 2 2.6%
  • Never, things are fine as is

    Votes: 41 53.2%
  • Never, too many stupid people in this country

    Votes: 9 11.7%
  • We should have less gun laws and arm everyone to protect them selves!?!?!?!?

    Votes: 21 27.3%

  • Total voters
    77
So, what measures, in your estimation, do not infringe or encroach on 2nd amendment rights, but are still opposed by the gun lobby?

I think it is an egregious violation of our rights for the gun lobby to try and pass bills that say you must allow guns on your own private property. IIRC the NRA even attacked a few of its own republican life long NRA members because they choose rights of the property owner over than of someone with a gun on thier property.

I support gun rights, it actions like this by the gun lobby makes them an enemy of freedom. If I can own property I should be able to tell people they cannot do this or have this on my property without my consent.

As to when guns should be banned in totality I say never. I am a socialist and the working class needs a recourse beyond that of the law as the law is only effective so long as it is not corrupted.
 
As long as you can exercise your right to keep and bear arms, you are being protected by the Second Amendment. As long as the law does not negate that right, anything else could be permissible under the Constitution.

So by your logic, a complete firearms ban would not violate the 2nd amendment. As long as a legal provision was made that allowed the keeping and bearing of quarterstaves, we could be said to be enjoying our right to keep and bear arms under a complete firearms ban.

Am I understanding you correctly?
 
So by your logic, a complete firearms ban would not violate the 2nd amendment. As long as a legal provision was made that allowed the keeping and bearing of quarterstaves, we could be said to be enjoying our right to keep and bear arms under a complete firearms ban.

Am I understanding you correctly?

No - you do not understand me correctly.

A complete ban on firearms would negate and destroy the protection to keep and bear arms and thus be the exact meaning of INFRINGED.
 
If the government ever came to my home to take my guns, they won't like the result. I would rebel against tyranny, and defend my nation and property from all threats - both foreign and domestic.
 
No - you do not understand me correctly.

A complete ban on firearms would negate and destroy the protection to keep and bear arms and thus be the exact meaning of INFRINGED.

All firearms are arms, but not all arms are firearms. Swords, spears, crossbows, bow and arrow, maces, and quarterstaves are all arms.

So by your logic, all weapons (including firearms) could be banned except for quarterstaves, and such legislation would not run afoul of the 2nd amendment. As long as people can keep and bear quarterstaves, they can be said to be enjoying their right to keep and bear arms.
 
You're nieve if you think people are rational as individuals.

Regarding your argument how do you explain the statistics?

Also I care more about those dead kids than your rights to have fun with a gun.

And once again a "progressive" exposes their disdain for humanity.

People are overwhelmingly rational. It's how we can have things like personal property and general peace.
 
You're nieve if you think people are rational as individuals.

Regarding your argument how do you explain the statistics?

Also I care more about those dead kids than your rights to have fun with a gun.
Since you 'care' so much why is it that the only time you, people like you, or this issue surfaces is when it involves a tragic mass event and not the day to day shootings that occur in every major city, amongst gangs, etc. Why arent you out there attacking the 'real' problems? As tragic as the school shooting is, the number of people in mass shootings will pale by comparison to day to day violence...so...where you at? Why arent you addressing the 'real' problems? Why arent you insisting the government lead more crusades against gangs and violent criminals?

Always with you it is attack the inanimate. Blame the gun. Hell...how many movies and TV shows does Hollywood make glorifying gun violence? How many of those same Hollywood lefties that claim to hate guns get off on playing characters that are 'badass' gun totin types? How many video games are gun related, shoot em up mass shooting type bloodfests? Why arent we clamoring for an end to their production? Society creates monsters, then blame the instrument the monster uses.
 
If we have a string of fatal stabbings, are we going to ban knives? Do I eat steak with my bare hands then?
 
50 more mass murders... there weren't even 50 mass shootings this year. But here is a map of them. I googled it so you don't have to.

140 people were murderers... and they obtained over half of their weapons legally. 140 people out of 100+mil people who own guns. Do you know what that is?
100.000.000/140 = 0.000001%

That is how many bad people who own guns were this year. So that means that 99.9999% gun owners are responsible people. Not the 30-40% that you were talking about. And you can be thankful i didn't slice that 140 people down because only half the weapons were legally obtained. But I said that everybody had legally obtained guns to boost your "reality".

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America | Mother Jones

Ok, so, this is the map of the mass shootings that happened this year.

That map isn't for this year. It covers mass shootings since 1982 and over that period some gun owners have passed away and others have become owners so the number of owners to consider is even higher than the 100 million you used which makes the percentage even less.

The horror of this situation is much like that of a plane crash. People see a big number pop up all at once and it freaks them out while the reality is that on the whole we are a very safe society.
 
All firearms are arms, but not all arms are firearms. Swords, spears, crossbows, bow and arrow, maces, and quarterstaves are all arms.

So by your logic, all weapons (including firearms) could be banned except for quarterstaves, and such legislation would not run afoul of the 2nd amendment. As long as people can keep and bear quarterstaves, they can be said to be enjoying their right to keep and bear arms.

No. That is your logic. I never said what you just said.
 
You're nieve if you think people are rational as individuals.

I don't think people are rational as individuals. Gun Control supporters are proof that people are not rational.

All the more reason why I need to have the ability to provide for my own defense from irrational fools with a complete disregard for the law and human life.
 
i'm sure it could... but in this case, basic reading comprehension was sufficient to determine truth from falsehood..

Having taught reading comprehension to both children and adults, you do not have to convince me of its importance. But what does reading comprehension have to do with you intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote?
 
A law with teeth in it will have an effect on the criminals.....

Because that has worked so well with the law against homicide.......
 
Having taught reading comprehension to both children and adults, you do not have to convince me of its importance. But what does reading comprehension have to do with you intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote?

Mind explaining these alleged misrepresentations? Because post #40 was spot on, and in your usual manner you didn't address the post at all in post #41, you just baselessly called him a liar in order to avoid addressing all the facts that proved you ignorant. How very dishonest, or should I say, haymarket of you.
 
Having taught reading comprehension to both children and adults, you do not have to convince me of its importance. But what does reading comprehension have to do with you intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote?

you used to claim you were a history teacher.. then you taught government....now you teach reading comprehension ( but can't quite put it into practice regarding a simple definition)

is there anything you haven't taught?

you haven't been misrepresented... you are just realizing that your argument doesn't hold water. and you're frustrated.
 
Why would you limit your google inquiry to "gun related deaths?"

Search for all homicides.

The following map shows the per capita murder rate by country. Darker colors mean a higher murder rate.

Map_of_world_by_intentional_homicide_rate.png


The USA is relatively safe.

The US ranks one of the highest in gun related deaths in the world, and of the top developed countries the highest.

Just google "gun related deaths by country" and find your own sources so as not to include my bias.

How long will it take before a law that's out dated by over 200 years be repealed?

The founding fathers had the intention of arming their militia against the British.
 
you used to claim you were a history teacher.. then you taught government....now you teach reading comprehension ( but can't quite put it into practice regarding a simple definition)

is there anything you haven't taught?

you haven't been misrepresented... you are just realizing that your argument doesn't hold water. and you're frustrated.

When I began teaching right out of college I taught middle school including sixth grade for a few years. I did teach reading comprehension at that time in addition to social studies classes. ALL teachers in the school did and EVRYONE was expected to include basic reading comprehension in everything you taught. I did the same thing teaching night school for a few years to adults.

A good teacher must include basic reading comprehension in any academic subject in the school system. Our administration used to say that every teacher is a reading teacher.

Not that it matters to you. This is not about reading comprehension. It is about lying.

You lied about my previous post. You lied when you attempted to excuse your lies.

this is factually incorrect....
1st, you have been utterly unsuccessful in showing how the NRA's interpretation is in err....
2nd, the NRA does not oppose any or all limits, they have even authored and lobbied for gun control measures...ans they have supported measures authored by others
.3rd,I can find no corroboration to your claim that the definition of "infringed" has changed in 200 years.

you quite literary struck out 3 times in one at bat.

It DID NOT mean what the nra wants it to mean to them today. INFRINGED meant a destruction of the right...... not any incremental obligation it might place upon in regards to use of firearms.
you keep insisting the definition has undergone a radical change that is being ignored by the gun lobby, yet you never prove it.... your word is insufficient proof of ..well.. anything.

My post including evidence from other sources on the very things you say were absent from it. You lied about that.

Then you lied claiming that you did not see the changes when it was a full FORTY MINUTES between the time of my changes and the time of your post. You lied pure and simple.
 
The US ranks one of the highest in gun related deaths in the world, and of the top developed countries the highest.

Just google "gun related deaths by country" and find your own sources so as not to include my bias.

How long will it take before a law that's out dated by over 200 years be repealed?

The founding fathers had the intention of arming their militia against the British.

It is not the 2nd that is the problem it how certain misguided people only use the second part of it to justify thier "belief system". An amendment by itself has no force in law not as far as the first ones anyhow. An AMendment amends something. That is it changes or modifies something to make it more clear or concise. The 2nd modifies Article 2, Section 8 clause 16 and that is all it does.

Continually avoiding the first half of the 2nd to justify and individualistic ideology is ridiculous. You can not pick and choose which parts of a law or regulation you are going to comply with and if you think you can then your mind set is very similar to the people whom you say you are trying to protect us and your family from.
 
No. That is your logic. I never said what you just said.

This is what you said

As long as you can exercise your right to keep and bear arms, you are being protected by the Second Amendment. As long as the law does not negate that right, anything else could be permissible under the Constitution.

So, according to your logic, as long as one can exercise one's right to keep and bear any arm (such as a quarterstaff), one is being protected by the Second Amendment. As long as the law does not negate that right (to keep and bear a quarterstaff), anything else could be permissible under the Constitution (up to and including a ban on all other weapons, including all firearms).
 
This is what you said



So, according to your logic, as long as one can exercise one's right to keep and bear any arm (such as a quarterstaff), one is being protected by the Second Amendment. As long as the law does not negate that right (to keep and bear a quarterstaff), anything else could be permissible under the Constitution (up to and including a ban on all other weapons, including all firearms).

No. that is according to your logic.
 
No. that is according to your logic.

No - it's not. It's what you yourself said.

As long as you can exercise your right to keep and bear arms, you are being protected by the Second Amendment. As long as the law does not negate that right, anything else could be permissible under the Constitution.

So my question to you is this: Is a quarterstaff an arm? How about a sword?

If the answer is yes, then as long as we are permitted to keep and bear a quarterstaff or a sword, then anything else could be permissible under the 2nd amendment. "Anything else" could mean all other weapons than those permitted are banned.

Why are you so afraid to stand behind your statement? Do you deny that a person with a quarterstaff can be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms?
 
No - it's not. It's what you yourself said.



So my question to you is this: Is a quarterstaff an arm? How about a sword?

If the answer is yes, then as long as we are permitted to keep and bear a quarterstaff or a sword, then anything else could be permissible under the 2nd amendment. "Anything else" could mean all other weapons than those permitted are banned.

Why are you so afraid to stand behind your statement? Do you deny that a person with a quarterstaff can be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms?

You seem to have made a fatal error in both what you like to call logic and in judgment. You seem to believe that I personally have the power to make those sort of decisions. Sorry, but I do not. Nor have I given them much thought as to what the limits should be.

A nuclear weapons is an arm by the logic you are employing. But we all know that you are not allowed to have one. As a people, we make those decisions all the time. This would be no different.

You do realize that is how laws are passed don't you and that I personally do not have that power?
 
That map isn't for this year. It covers mass shootings since 1982 and over that period some gun owners have passed away and others have become owners so the number of owners to consider is even higher than the 100 million you used which makes the percentage even less.

The horror of this situation is much like that of a plane crash. People see a big number pop up all at once and it freaks them out while the reality is that on the whole we are a very safe society.

Right.
Well I was working in quite a haste and may have missed out on some info. So yes, the % is even less than that and indeed, all western nations are quite very, very safe nations. The greatest threat to our safety is indeed, the media which keeps bloating up stories and making reality seem much more horrifying than it... making people want "tougher laws" and having everybody suffer due to it.
 
You seem to have made a fatal error in both what you like to call logic and in judgment. You seem to believe that I personally have the power to make those sort of decisions. Sorry, but I do not. Nor have I given them much thought as to what the limits should be.

A nuclear weapons is an arm by the logic you are employing. But we all know that you are not allowed to have one. As a people, we make those decisions all the time. This would be no different.

You do realize that is how laws are passed don't you and that I personally do not have that power?

I have made no fatal error. Of course I don't think you personally have he power to make those sorts of decision. We were simply discussing your opinion, remember?

Remember, I asked you:

So, what measures, in your estimation, do not infringe or encroach on 2nd amendment rights, but are still opposed by the gun lobby?

And you gave your opinion:

As long as you can exercise your right to keep and bear arms, you are being protected by the Second Amendment. As long as the law does not negate that right, anything else could be permissible under the Constitution.

So I'll ask you again, Is a quarterstaff an arm? How about a sword?

If they are, then based upon your response above, as long as we are allowed to have a quarterstaff we can be said to be enjoying our right to keep and bear arms, and anything else could be permissible.

A person with a quarterstaff could be said to be enjoying his right to keep and bear arms, correct?
 
Back
Top Bottom