• 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!

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 18.2%

  • No

    Votes: 53 80.3%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Total voters
    66
  • Poll closed .
countryboy said:
Please read the Constitution, and get back to us. The 2nd Amendment is not a states rights issue. States do not have a legal right to regulate firearms.
Click to expand...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I see "well regulated militia" within the 2nd amendment. Doesn't specify who regulates it.

Gun control is very much a state issue. Hence why so many states have so many different laws on gun control, just look at NY and then look at some state out west.
 
Luftwaffe said:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I see "well regulated militia" within the 2nd amendment. Doesn't specify who regulates it.

Gun control is very much a state issue. Hence why so many states have so many different laws on gun control, just look at NY and then look at some state out west.
Click to expand...
Please educate yourself, since your Jr. High teachers are obviously failing you. You really should actually read the Constitution, it is obvious you never have. Dude, it's all over the interwebz. :rolleyes:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
 
countryboy said:
Please educate yourself, since your Jr. High teachers are obviously failing you. You really should actually read the Constitution, it is obvious you never have. Dude, it's all over the interwebz. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

States have and continue to impose gun restrictions or loosen gun restrictions.

This is a state issue, the states determine the amount of gun control within their border.
 
Goshin said:
You really need to clarify: "changed" TO WHAT.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What's wrong with the current wording? It is the criminal element which mis-uses "arms", not law-abiding citizens.
 
Luftwaffe said:
States have and continue to impose gun restrictions or loosen gun restrictions.

This is a state issue, the states determine the amount of gun control within their border.
Click to expand...

So in your estimation, the Constitution should simply be ignored? I posted the portion of it that proves you wrong.
 
mdw99 said:
I am from Scotland and doing a modern studies assignment at school on the second amendment of the US constitution
Click to expand...
Why?

and would like to gather views from US citizens.
Click to expand...
So why a forum?

Could you tell me if you think the second amendment needs to be changed or not and give reasons why.
Many thanks
Click to expand...
Changed how?
You really should be here to answer specific questions before we can give you answers.
 
countryboy said:
So in your estimation, the Constitution should simply be ignored? I posted the portion of it that proves you wrong.
Click to expand...

It should not, but states have their own interpretation of the constitution.

It is a state issue.

For example, some states interpret half the constitution and state that "people have the right to bear arms" but cannot necessarily make a militia.

It is a state issue, if this wasn't up for debate then states wouldn't be passing gun laws right?

The ture debate isn't whether or not we should amend the 2nd amendment, it's whether or not the federal government should provide a universal translation of the 2nd amendment that all staes must adhere to.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, take out the underlined part, it will make it more clear.
Click to expand...
Plenty clear to me. Just need to be smart enough to realize when it was written. That was the language of the day.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, take out the underlined part, it will make it more clear.
Click to expand...

Yep! Or, return the well regulated militia. That couldn't hurt either.
 
jet57 said:
I think that it will be amended, in time. Maybe two generations from now. I think that it will be amended because the amount of and technology of modern arms has created a situation in the US wherein mass shootings are almost too easy to pull off. Moreover, the divide that now exists between the conservative 2nd Amendment political movement and most of the US who are for a safer and more secure society is being pushed to it's brink.

I don't have concerns about pistols and rifles, but as I said, it's the high capacity magazines and the devil-may-care attitude about their use in assault weapons that will eventually tip the balance. As I say, it's the political 2nd Amendment will eventually sacrifice the amendment itself.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that only conservatives appreciate the bill of rights, or that only liberals are in favor of a safe and secure society?
 
Luftwaffe said:
It should not, but states have their own interpretation of the constitution.

It is a state issue.

For example, some states interpret half the constitution and state that "people have the right to bear arms" but cannot necessarily make a militia.

It is a state issue, if this wasn't up for debate then states wouldn't be passing gun laws right?

The ture debate isn't whether or not we should amend the 2nd amendment, it's whether or not the federal government should provide a universal translation of the 2nd amendment that all staes must adhere to.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by this (bolded)?
 
Montecresto said:
What do you mean by this (bolded)?
Click to expand...

"In addition to federal gun laws, all U.S. states and some local jurisdictions have imposed their own firearms restrictions. Each of the fifty states has its own laws regarding guns.For example, Hawaii's CONSTITUTION simply copies the text of the Second Amendment verbatim,[171] while North Carolina and South Carolina begin with the same but continue with an injunction against maintaining standing armies.[172][173] Alaska also begins with the full text of the Second Amendment, but adds that the right "shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State".[174] Rhode Island, subtracts the first half of the Second Amendment, leaving only, "[t]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".[175]"

Grain of salt like always, but wiki vandalism is low and gets lower nowadays.

Gun politics in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
CLAX1911 said:
You are far more likely to die in a car accident than even on a battlefield.

The way I see it. If I drive on American streets, I am infar more danger.

Plus, people don't often run around and shoot people. Most folks that die from gunfire, are involved in something that is less than legal. It's rare that random people get shot.

Keep out of illegal stuff, and drive carefully, you should be okay.
Click to expand...
I'm in favor of other people not getting shot as well.

I'm now also in favor of adding a right to effective, free, and convenient public transit to the 2nd Amendment in order to address your other point.:mrgreen:
Kal'Stang said:
You should have provided a link to that. Seems like old data or false data to me.

Wiki Link

Wiki is usually kept up to date fairly quickly. For the same countries listed here....

United States: 4.7 in 2012 which is higher than in your graph.
Italy: 0.9 in 2012 which is higher than in your graph.
Canada: 1.6 in 2012 which is higher than in your graph.
United Kingdom: 1.0 in 2011 which is higher than in your graph.
Japan: 0.3 in 2011 which is higher than in your graph.
Germany: 0.8 in 2011 which is higher than in your graph.
France: 1.0 in 2012 which is higher than in your graph.
Russia: 9.2 in 2012 which is most definitely higher than in your graph since it didn't even have it. It should be noted that Russia here has a far worse gun related homicide than most of the countries here combined. (leave out Germany and France and the rest have less gun homicide rates combined than Russia.)
Click to expand...
Ok. I grabbed the first google search result that popped up. Didn't vet it for current info. The relative imbalance between western Europe and the US still remains even if we're worse than before.
 
Luftwaffe said:
"In addition to federal gun laws, all U.S. states and some local jurisdictions have imposed their own firearms restrictions. Each of the fifty states has its own laws regarding guns.For example, Hawaii's CONSTITUTION simply copies the text of the Second Amendment verbatim,[171] while North Carolina and South Carolina begin with the same but continue with an injunction against maintaining standing armies.[172][173] Alaska also begins with the full text of the Second Amendment, but adds that the right "shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State".[174] Rhode Island, subtracts the first half of the Second Amendment, leaving only, "[t]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".[175]"

Grain of salt like always, but wiki vandalism is low and gets lower nowadays.

Gun politics in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Sure states have their own constitution, but they don't supersede the US constitution, and standing armies and militias aren't the same thing.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Plenty clear to me. Just need to be smart enough to realize when it was written. That was the language of the day.
Click to expand...

Most people are either too stupid to understand, ignorant of, or in dishonest opposition to what the 2nd Amendment says, unfortunately.
 
Lursa said:
Universal background checks require that you give complete strangers your social security number. They end up having access to all your private information if they choose to abuse that.

Forget it.
Click to expand...

So does getting a job. You want to forget that too?
 
mdw99 said:
I am from Scotland and doing a modern studies assignment at school on the second amendment of the US constitution and would like to gather views from US citizens.
Could you tell me if you think the second amendment needs to be changed or not and give reasons why.
Many thanks
Click to expand...

One thing that needs to be understood right from the beginning is that the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment so you need to ask yourself just what do you think would be accomplished by altering the words of the Amendment? SCOTUS has been boringly consistent for going on 140 years re-affirming this principle, that the right to arms is not in any manner dependent on the words of the Constitution for its existence.

So, in my opinion, you might as well be asking if Newton's Law should be amended, you know because so many people are injured and killed from falls . . .
 
Even if at best you think that it needs clarification rather than endorsement of further gun control measures, I wouldn't have nearly enough confidence that any modern amendment would be able to substantively eliminate confusion for the current or future generations.
 
countryboy said:
The high capacity magazine argument, like all anti-gun arguments, will do absolutely nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Why does the modern liberal mind have such a difficult time understanding such a simple concept?
Click to expand...

Your talking about right now. I was talking about the future.
 
Montecresto said:
What makes you think that only conservatives appreciate the bill of rights, or that only liberals are in favor of a safe and secure society?
Click to expand...

Never said any of that. What I said was that our society is divided into two camps of responsibility and that the right-wing camp is what will eventually cause the 2nd Amendment to be tampered with. I believe that very strongly. For instance, the right-wing is fixated on the notion that only a real American believes in no gun control. That's witch hunt mentality and the public at large has never done well with that.
 
jet57 said:
I think that it will be amended, in time. Maybe two generations from now. I think that it will be amended because the amount of and technology of modern arms has created a situation in the US wherein mass shootings are almost too easy to pull off.
Click to expand...

So you celebrate and endorse the profound ignorance of the US population for foundational constitutional principles?

jet57 said:
Moreover, the divide that now exists between the conservative 2nd Amendment political movement and most of the US who are for a safer and more secure society is being pushed to it's brink.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that some have this altruistic "safer society" intention but the reality is, gun control is always a political tool used to achieve and maintain political control (ensuring the security of the government, not the free state). Those who advocate European style gun control because of gun crime are just useful idiots employed by those who wish to reverse engineer European style political control over US citizens (the rejection of which was the point of the Constitution)

jet57 said:
I don't have concerns about pistols and rifles, but as I said, it's the high capacity magazines and the devil-may-care attitude about their use in assault weapons that will eventually tip the balance. As I say, it's the political 2nd Amendment will eventually sacrifice the amendment itself.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you admit the political aspect of the debate . . . If what you say comes to fruition, it won't be the "political 2nd Amendment" that causes the usurpation of the right to arms; it will be the citizens abdicating their duty to hold the government to the constraints placed on it by them, though the Constitution.
 
Luftwaffe said:
It should not, but states have their own interpretation of the constitution.

It is a state issue.

For example, some states interpret half the constitution and state that "people have the right to bear arms" but cannot necessarily make a militia.

It is a state issue, if this wasn't up for debate then states wouldn't be passing gun laws right?

The ture debate isn't whether or not we should amend the 2nd amendment, it's whether or not the federal government should provide a universal translation of the 2nd amendment that all staes must adhere to.
Click to expand...

What part of the 10th Amendment do you not understand?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
 
Cephus said:
So does getting a job. You want to forget that too?
Click to expand...

Employers are required by law to keep those things secure. It would be impossible to control if just anyone had your SSN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom