• 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 .
As I've stated before, a person with a gun is more likely to defend themselves than one without. But they are also more likely to shoot themselves or some innocent person. Both are true. But when we measure how many times either is done, we have to measure reported and verifiable events and not just poll and garner opinions.
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Why can't libs ever answer a simple, "yes, or no" question?
 
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Why can't libs ever answer a simple, "yes, or no" question?
Yes. The study is well published. Surely you've seen it before.
 
is the sale of firearms not considered an act of commerce?

Uh where does that term appear in the commerce clause?

where does the commerce clause even reference individuals?

nice try but that's more mental masturbation
 
Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Why can't libs ever answer a simple, "yes, or no" question?

its a worthless study because it does not consider all the times crimes are prevented without a criminal being shot

private citizens are far less likely to shoot other innocents than cops are and far more likely to shoot the criminal than cops are
 
hay, i have been very clear about what i have stated, if you feel as if you got lost in that conversation, please revisit previous post to find your questions answered.

If you mean the one where you jump from trying to connect one number on one page of the coloring book to connecting it to a different number in a different coloring book and then to a third number in yet a different coloring book - yes that was crushed and flushed when you first brought it up.
 
its a worthless study because it does not consider all the times crimes are prevented without a criminal being shot

private citizens are far less likely to shoot other innocents than cops are and far more likely to shoot the criminal than cops are

And you're free to present actual evidence.
 
the only fact that is undisputed is that millions upon millions of more firearms are in circulation

and gun clubs and gun instructors are seeing more and more people seeking their services

yes - I took no issue with that. And only shows the gun folk are more ardent in their pursuits than ever while the general population rejects gun ownership compared to previous years.
 
Uh where does that term appear in the commerce clause?

where does the commerce clause even reference individuals?

nice try but that's more mental masturbation

it has been argued that nothing in the constitution directly stated that the federal government could charter a bank, but that was Before the supreme court proved otherwise in their ruling of McCulloch V. Maryland.

i prsume you are familiar with the particulars of that case?
 
there is no obvious language or even language that reasonably can be inferred to delegate the power of gun control to the federal government.

You asked and I provided you with the obvious language. It could not be more obvious.



and guess what-DOn't you think anti gun politicians would have used that language if they thought it meant that?

You are arguing with me - not them. I could not care less what anybody else may think.

your contradictory interpretations of two parts of the constitution are hilarious.

I said nothing of the kind nor have you pointed out anything of the kind.

Congress doesn't have any power to regulate guns.

But we have already looked at the language which gives them that authority. So your denial is one of pure belief and not based on anything other than your own personal belief simply because you want to believe it.

that's why FDR made up that power in the commerce clause

And indeed that is one clause that can be used.

try again, your argument is without any merit and is completely contrary to the entire concept of a government limited to specific power
 
You asked and I provided you with the obvious language. It could not be more obvious.





You are arguing with me - not them. I could not care less what anybody else may think.



I said nothing of the kind nor have you pointed out anything of the kind.



But we have already looked at the language which gives them that authority. So your denial is one of pure belief and not based on anything other than your own personal belief simply because you want to believe it.



And indeed that is one clause that can be used.

try again, your argument is without any merit and is completely contrary to the entire concept of a government limited to specific power

The language is not OBVIOUS. Your claims to the contrary. it took 130 years for FDR to "find that power"

the rest of your post is pure garbage
 
it has been argued that nothing in the constitution directly stated that the federal government could charter a bank, but that was Before the supreme court proved otherwise in their ruling of McCulloch V. Maryland.

i prsume you are familiar with the particulars of that case?

lets stick to the topic. there are other places where you can go to get help for your Government 101 class.

we know that the courts tend to favor expansion of governmental power. what is at issue is what the founders intended and what the plain language means
 
lets stick to the topic. there are other places where you can go to get help for your Government 101 class.

we know that the courts tend to favor expansion of governmental power. what is at issue is what the founders intended and what the plain language means

i believe that the Necessary and Proper clause is relevant to discussing the subject at hand.
 
i believe that the Necessary and Proper clause is relevant to discussing the subject at hand.

so it is your learned opinion that gun control is a necessary and proper power of the federal government even though the founders clearly saw that as a state issue. would say traffic control and zoning also be a necessary and proper power?

FDR claimed the government needed this power to combat a federally created problem-prohibition gangsters. He couldn't ban gangsters so he pandered by essentially banning machine guns. 20 years later, pimps in office tried to ban bike gangs by severely restricting "switchblade knives" (can anyone argue that was needed or a federal law was proper for that)

however the states had the power to regulate machine guns without invoking bogus claims of constitutional authority. what this means is FDR wanted to pander rather than there was a real necessity for this law

your understanding of the N&P clause is deficient because that relates to powers needed to carry out proper federal functions

gun control isn't one of them
 
The language is not OBVIOUS. Your claims to the contrary. it took 130 years for FDR to "find that power"

the rest of your post is pure garbage

Oh but it is and I gave you language complete with THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER.

Again, your obsession with FDR is your own and matters not to me.

Calling silly names does not provide a substitute for a cogent argument with any evidence.
 
lets stick to the topic. there are other places where you can go to get help for your Government 101 class.

we know that the courts tend to favor expansion of governmental power. what is at issue is what the founders intended and what the plain language means

And why is the personal opinion of a Founder so important to you that you are willing to build a mountain around that molehill rather than recognize the will of the American people through their duly elected government?
 
Oh but it is and I gave you language complete with THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER.

Again, your obsession with FDR is your own and matters not to me.

Calling silly names does not provide a substitute for a cogent argument with any evidence.

there is no power given to congress that has anything to do with firearms. not a single sentence that involves what private citizens can own

FAIL
 
And why is the personal opinion of a Founder so important to you that you are willing to build a mountain around that molehill rather than recognize the will of the American people through their duly elected government?

I am sorry your posts appear unable to comprehend what a constitutional republic is. I am worried that you deny that the "will of the majority" as exercised by the pimps they elect to office is limited by the constitution and that the will of the majority was intended to be severely restricted by the founders and the constitution that rules this nation. I realize that pandering to the lowest common denominator and suppressing individual liberties is a characteristic of the democrat party but your argument is so specious that it only deserves derision
 
there is no power given to congress that has anything to do with firearms. not a single sentence that involves what private citizens can own

FAIL

I already gave you the language direct from the US Constitution. To deny that is .... well ... it is inconceivable!!!
 
I am sorry you are unable to comprehend what a constitutional republic is.

Not only do I know what it is, I taught it several hundred times over the years and strongly support it.

I am worried that you are unable to figure out that the "will of the majority" as exercised by the pimps they elect to office is limited by the constitution and that the will of the majority was intended to be severely restricted by the founders and the constitution that rules this nation. I realize that pandering to the lowest common denominator and suppressing individual liberties is a characteristic of the democrat party but your argument is so specious that it only deserves derision

WOW!!!!! :doh:shock: I am tempted to go on about your utter contempt for the American people and their government but you pretty much laid that out without any need to elaborate on it much. That is very very sad.

DERISION seems to be your poor substitute for debate. But thanks for publicly admitting you have no argument. :2wave:
 
I already gave you the language direct from the US Constitution. To deny that is .... well ... it is inconceivable!!!

I want to see the language and I want you to point out where private firearms were mentioned

it cannot be done

are you incapable of cutting and pasting the words and then discussing how those words delegate that power?
 
Not only do I know what it is, I taught it several hundred times over the years and strongly support it.

:lamo:lamo

that claim belies your previous post
 
Sadly for you, the personal views of Madison are not part of the Constitution and as so are irrelevant next to the document itself. But then you know that because I have told you that many many times whenever you bring up this canard.

attention, attention!!

Haymarket states James Madison irrelevant to constitution
.

the father of the Constitution James Madison, ..the man who worked on the Constitution, before and during constitutional convention.

the man who created more works on the constitution then anyone, and the author of the bill of rights...
 
If you mean the one where you jump from trying to connect one number on one page of the coloring book to connecting it to a different number in a different coloring book and then to a third number in yet a different coloring book - yes that was crushed and flushed when you first brought it up.

you failure is not my problem, if you would spent more time reading about our founding documents, you would have less trouble.
 
Back
Top Bottom