• 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 .
haymarket said:
Since we do NOT have a militia any longer and have not had one for a very long time now and it has been replaced by professional standing armies - your concerns are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The citizens are/were the militia. They were considered completely separate from standing armies EXPRESSLY to act against such if the need to act against the govt arose.
 
Goshin said:
Hell no. Don't touch my 2nd Amendment.





Not unless you're going to strengthen and clarify it even further as an individual right not to be infringed upon.
Click to expand...
It doesn't even need clarification IMO, it's crystal clear to anyone approaching it honestly. An amendment should be passed that states any attempts to corrupt a constitutional amendment found within the BOR is an automatic charge of either treason or attempt to overthrow the government.
 
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...
They did prior to the fourteenth amendment because it was a prohibition against federal overreach, however the 14A bound the states and their respective legislatures to the founding document.
 
Lursa said:
LOL

OK, you admit your post and quote meant nothing relevant.

What a waste of typing.
Click to expand...

nope - I said nothing of the kind. I have no idea where your source is for all this stuff you make up in a sad effort to try to score some points.
 
Lursa said:
The citizens are/were the militia. They were considered completely separate from standing armies EXPRESSLY to act against such if the need to act against the govt arose.
Click to expand...

Which citizens? The founders wanted no standing army to be separate from. The Amendment says nothing about fighting government tyranny.
 
haymarket said:
nope - I said nothing of the kind. I have no idea where your source is for all this stuff you make up in a sad effort to try to score some points.
Click to expand...

I completely rebutted your post and you denied what your own post actually said.

Apparently you didnt understand the quote. Otherwise, you wouldnt have posted it. I never saw you actually support the quote....because you could not.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It doesn't even need clarification IMO, it's crystal clear to anyone approaching it honestly. An amendment should be passed that states any attempts to corrupt a constitutional amendment found within the BOR is an automatic charge of either treason or attempt to overthrow the government.
Click to expand...

Anything in the constitution can be changed. To do what you ask would defeat the entire purpose of Article V. And I have no idea how such a thing could be enforced since you use the standard of "attempt to corrupt a constitutional amendment" which sounds so vague and so broad as to be effectively meaningless.
 
Lursa said:
I completely rebutted your post and you denied what your own post actually said.

Apparently you didnt understand the quote. Otherwise, you wouldnt have posted it. I never saw you actually support the quote....because you could not.
Click to expand...

You were caught saying I said something I did not even say. So how could you rebut something I never said? You are simply being absurd now in a really pathetic effort to save face.

And where did I deny what my post said? Produce it now or apologize. Of course, you will do neither.

You have a habit of writing stuff that makes no sense and this latest post is a good example. Of course, being a true believer will do that to you.
 
haymarket said:
You were caught saying I said something I did not even say. So how could you rebut something I never said? You are simply being absurd now in a really pathetic effort to save face.

And where did I deny what my post said? Produce it now or apologize. Of course, you will do neither.
Click to expand...

What did I claim you said that you didnt? I explicitly said that you used an invalid quote to make your point and you denied it.

I explained and bolded exactly how I interpreted and that the quote contained exactly that.

I can do this all day....man up and admit you were wrong or explain how the quote supported your position. I have firewood to split and it's raining out.
 
Lursa said:
What did I claim you said that you didnt? I explicitly said that you used an invalid quote to make your point and you denied it.
Click to expand...

I NEVER TALKED ABOUT NEED. I thought we had that clear. Reagan did in his quote. And when you pushed the NEED angle I told you several examples of how your wants or needs does not mean crap in what you want compared to the laws of your community. Did you miss that?

Again - where the hell do you get off pretending that you can declare a quote from Ronald Reagan in which he gives his personal opinion as INVALID?

That seems to be at the heart of this. You apparently believe that you have accomplished something and now have put on the stripes of a referee and declaring yourself the winner.

I can do this all day
Click to expand...

Go for it. And begin by telling the world how you have the authority to declare the opinion of somebody else INVALID?

You are making no sense on any level given my statement and yours and you keep running circles chasing your own tail and going nowhere nor catching it. But hey- its a free country so continue chasing for all I care. :doh:lamo
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Again - where the hell do you get off pretending that you can declare a quote from Ronald Reagan in which he gives his personal opinion as INVALID?

That seems to be at the heart of this. You apparently believe that you have accomplished something and now have put on the stripes of a referee and declaring yourself the winner.



Go for it. And begin by telling the world how you have the authority to declare the opinion of somebody else INVALID?

You are making no sense on any level given my statement and yours and you keep running circles chasing your own tail and going nowhere nor catching it. But hey- its a free country so continue chasing for all I care.
Click to expand...


Calm down. I said it was invalid in making your point. You are free to clarify your point in using that quote...yet you have not. Unless you can do so, I have accomplished MY point. Your denial or drama doesnt change that. If your point was different, then maybe you can support it?

You have the quote. You have my direct replies with examples and support.

Any day now.......I can always split firewood and come back :mrgreen:


Edit: But please dont come back with more whining...either use the quote and rebut my direct responses to that or stop avoiding it and being defensive just so you dont have to 'look wrong on the Internet.'
 
Lursa said:
Calm down. I said it was invalid in making your point. You are free to clarify your point in using that quote...yet you have not. Unless you can do so, I have accomplished MY point.
Click to expand...

What so called "point" is that?

Any day now.......I can always split firewood and come back
Click to expand...

You badly confuse me with someone who cares what you may do.

But please dont come back with more whining...either use the quote and rebut my direct responses to that or stop avoiding it and being defensive just so you dont have to 'look wrong on the Internet.'
Click to expand...

You rebutted nothing from my posts. You don't like the reagan quote.
I
DON'T
CARE.

YOu cannot declare the Reagan quote as INVALID because that makes no sense as the man gave his personal opinion that is beyond your or mine or anyones authority to judge as VALID or INVALID. It simply is.

What is there about that reality that is so incomprehensible to you?
 
haymarket said:
What so called "point" is that?



You badly confuse me with someone who cares what you may do.



You rebutted nothing from my posts. You don't like the reagan quote.
I
DON'T
CARE.

YOu cannot declare the Reagan quote as INVALID because that makes no sense as the man gave his personal opinion that is beyond your or mine or anyones authority to judge as VALID or INVALID. It simply is.

What is there about that reality that is so incomprehensible to you?
Click to expand...

Tantrums are not attractive and do not convince anyone you are right.

Lursa said:
Calm down. I said it was invalid in making your point. You are free to clarify your point in using that quote...yet you have not. Unless you can do so, I have accomplished MY point. Your denial or drama doesnt change that. If your point was different, then maybe you can support it?

You have the quote. You have my direct replies with examples and support.

Any day now.......I can always split firewood and come back :mrgreen:


Edit: But please dont come back with more whining...either use the quote and rebut my direct responses to that or stop avoiding it and being defensive just so you dont have to 'look wrong on the Internet.'
Click to expand...
 
Montecresto said:
Ha, now it's Reagan and Brady are bad, don't forget George Bush, better add him in, he signed a bill that would toughen screenings on those exercising their second amendment right. And he was opposed to repealing Clinton's 1994 assault weapons ban.
Click to expand...

That really has nothing to do wit what I said. The beginning of the Brady thuggery was a guy who worked for Nixon and the CIA and he and Nixon wanted to ban handguns It was later take over by hysterical DuPont Executive, Nelson "Pete" Shields whose son was the victim of the racist black "Zebra Killers". later the Brady's took over-using James Brady's injury and Sarah's megalomania to advance the gun ban message
 
Lursa said:
Tantrums are not attractive and do not convince anyone you are right.
Click to expand...

So you have thrown in the towel apparently and now its you playing Miss Manners advice column. :doh Fine with me. :roll:
 
haymarket said:
No - that is not the point. I stated quite clearly - and some here on your side took objection to it - that Scalia invented new rules and new standards and a new version of the Second Amendment that we did not have in the past 220 years. One such example is his nonsense about a PREFATORY clause which he apparently views as having less than the value of a piece of toilet tissue - and the OPERANT clause which he seems to see as all important. I stated that this was an invention of Scalia in Heller and possibly came from the rightist build-up to it in their 25 year cause celebre which resulted in Heller.

I provided evidence which shows this despite the urgings of Jerry that I read Heller - which I did and found the language which shows I am correct.

And THAT my friend was MY point.
Click to expand...

that's the usual nonsense. The Second Amendment was always about individual rights being recognized.
 
Montecresto said:
Yep, and this is the "gun grabber"

Obama chided for allowing guns in national parks, wildlife refuges | NOLA.com
Click to expand...

I guess you missed his appointments to the USSC and his use of an executive order denying thousands of valuable collectible MI Garands and Carbines to be reimported into the USA. The turd claimed he was afraid of "these weapons of war" ending up on the streets. The asshole was apparently too stupid to understand that the US Government sold millions of those rifles to us citizens since Korea and few if any "ended up on the streets"
 
haymarket said:
But aren't all three of those guys evil partisan Democrats out to destroy guns and the political base that supports the gun lobby? :roll:
Click to expand...

You two can pretend that the Dems aren't any worse than the GOP but the facts are against you

1) the 1934 NFA and its modifications in 39-DEM SPONSORED, MAJORITY DEM SUPPORT

2) the GCA of 68-Dem Sponsored, Dem Majority support

3) the HUGHES AMENDMENT-no one knows if this really passed but Rangel made sure it did with some patent dishonesty. DEM SUPPORT and DEM SPONSOR

4) Th Brady Bill-Dem Support, sponsorship etc

5) CLINTON AWB-again all Dems

6) the Lautenberg Amendment-All Dems

so every single federal rape of our rights has been caused by the DEMS
 
TurtleDude said:
that's the usual nonsense. The Second Amendment was always about individual rights being recognized.
Click to expand...

I see you are unable to refute anything I stated with any verifiable evidence.
 
TurtleDude said:
You two can pretend that the Dems aren't any worse than the GOP but the facts are against you
Click to expand...

Was Ronald Reagan a Democrat when he signed gun control measures into law and supported others and gave statements decrying such weapons as the AK-47?

so every single federal rape of our rights has been caused by the DEMS
Click to expand...

Reagan will be very surprised to discover he was a Democrat when he signed those bills into law.
 
haymarket said:
Was Ronald Reagan a Democrat when he signed gun control measures into law and supported others and gave statements decrying such weapons as the AK-47?



Reagan will be very surprised to discover he was a Democrat when he signed those bills into law.
Click to expand...

remind me of what FEDERAL gun control Reagan was involved in.

and we have edified you as to the Hughes Amendment so again your posts are disingenuous

Blathering REAGAN every time I note that the odious Democraps are the party of gun bans federally is not an effective rebuttal
 
haymarket said:
I see you are unable to refute anything I stated with any verifiable evidence.
Click to expand...

there was nothing to refute. You just make stuff up and do not support it
 
TurtleDude said:
remind me of what FEDERAL gun control Reagan was involved in.

and we have edified you as to the Hughes Amendment so again your posts are disingenuous

Blathering REAGAN every time I note that the odious Democraps are the party of gun bans federally is not an effective rebuttal
Click to expand...

it is the perfect rebuttal as he was a Republican. And that is too bad for your partisan vitriolic argument.
 
haymarket said:
it is the perfect rebuttal as he was a Republican. And that is too bad for your partisan vitriolic argument.
Click to expand...

that is not responsive to counter the charge that EVERY FEDERAL rape of the 2A is something schemed by the Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom