• 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 .
What, will criminals be less criminally in the future? :rolleyes:

Probably not, but the movie theaters and schools and shopping malls will be a lot safer. :rolleyes:
 
I'm a liberal and know plenty of 'liberals' or Democrats that are strong supporters of the 2A and less restriction. Certainly no more.

I'm also a strng supporter of the 2nd amendment and a gun owner. I just know a big problem when I see one, and it makes me rather concerned for the 2nd amendment. There's just too much stupidity with firearms out there today and I think that the public will do something about it.
 
I think ultimately the gun grabbers might try to grab guns. Then they will be killed and the nonsense will disappear

But - what will you do when all the gun grabbers see you and trample you because they don't like you?

I mean; that could hurt.
 
Not by Restricting access to an object.

You haven't explained how that works yet.
Your entire argument is based on the premise that access to an object makes you safer by changing someone else's human nature.

The inverse should therefore be true.
 
How do you figure?

Well, with the heavy military fire power out of the way, 80 people won't die in one stroke. With ID taken for more than a hundred rounds, notices can be sent to let the buyer know he's on a list: nothing to hide - right?
 
Well, with the heavy military fire power out of the way, 80 people won't die in one stroke. With ID taken for more than a hundred rounds, notices can be sent to let the buyer know he's on a list: nothing to hide - right?

Do you mean the same firepower the police and criminals have? Actually, one cannot access the same firepower as the military, and where, in the US, has there been an incident of 80 deaths from a single shooter?
 
Well, with the heavy military fire power out of the way, 80 people won't die in one stroke. With ID taken for more than a hundred rounds, notices can be sent to let the buyer know he's on a list: nothing to hide - right?

Again, this will only affect law abiding citizens. The criminals are like, you know, criminals and stuff. Duh.
 
Your entire argument is based on the premise that access to an object makes you safer by changing someone else's human nature.
No, it isn't. My argument is that better weaponry equals better ability to protect one's self. Regardless of nature.

The inverse should therefore be true.
Your misrepresentation of my argument shows you either dint understand or must resort to logical fallacy to feel like you are making a point.
 
I'm also a strng supporter of the 2nd amendment and a gun owner. I just know a big problem when I see one, and it makes me rather concerned for the 2nd amendment. There's just too much stupidity with firearms out there today and I think that the public will do something about it.

You don't support the 2nd amendment at all, let alone a "strong supporter". Who do you think you're fooling?
 
The whole Constitution needs an overhaul--especially the 10th amendment.

Please support Sen. Coburn's call for a Constitutional Convention.

Nothing at all will come out of DC until there is a groundswell of ALL Americans .
 
Yes - The 2A needs to have "shall not be infringed" changed to "shall not be abridged or denied".
 
Nope, "the people" means, the people. That's the context. Nowhere else in the Constitution does "the people" mean anything other than, the people.

Apparently you didn't read the thread and follow along. What I presented is an argument that has been made by some. But the end of my post, that you quoted, explains my position!
 
You 2A folks won't be happy until every American is able to OPEN carry whatever they want to carry wherever they want to carry it .
 
Last edited:
You 2A folks won't be happy until every American is ableto OPEN carry whatever they want to carry wherever they want to carry it .

I would prefer not to have to pay a special tax to own a suppressor for hearing safety or possess a rifle with a barrel shorter than what the government deems as legal...
 
You 2A folks won't be happy until every American is able to OPEN carry whatever they want to carry wherever they want to carry it .

You're not a 2nd amendment folk? What other parts of the constitution do you take issue with as well?
 
Last edited:
How do you know?
I certainly don't have to justify my credentials on any amendment to you .

Your not a 2nd amendment folk. What other parts of the constitution do you take issue with as well?
 
I honestly do not understand why Scots surrendered their arms. Yes, I know about the Dublin shooting, and your gun ban will not prevent the next mass homicide.

Banning private arms is a human rights violation.

He asked the same question on at least one other board as well. The Dunblane massacre caused a collective garment soiling by a nation of ninnies
 
It is badly written and allows for intelligent people to honestly disagree. The 2nd part of the sentence seems to be the "money sentence" or the main idea. The first part - "a well-regulated militia..." is a dependent clause to that 2nd part (the "rights of the people to bear keep and bear arms...").
The first part, the dependent clause part about a well regulated militia, should be eliminated leaving "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to stand alone.

The US does not want to follow the example set in places like "gun-free" Bermuda or the British Virgin Islands or Northern Ireland with a high murder rate or follow Australia which made guns harder to own and has seen an increase in per capita violent crimes (despite a lowering of homicide rates). Crime in the US is going down while the number of firearm permits is escalating.
 
Do you mean the same firepower the police and criminals have? Actually, one cannot access the same firepower as the military, and where, in the US, has there been an incident of 80 deaths from a single shooter?

80 was an exageration; but it makes a point. As for fire power. I'm talking about the firepower of the Aurora shooter and Columbine just to name two. And yes, there are certain types of weapons not availble to the public, and that's good.
 
You folks will always move the goalposts over the Grand Canyon no matter what the other side gives.
We call you GOPs the "false-equivalency" party after its originator Eric Cantor.

You simply want to make up your own rules as you go.
I'll stick with my common sense thread supporting Texas with concealed carry in schools--as an example of who I am .

I would prefer not to have to pay a special tax to own a suppressor for hearing safety or possess a rifle with a barrel shorter than what the government deems as legal...
 
Decreasing access to murder weapons decreases murder. Increasing access to murder weapons increases murder.

The reason our atomic bomb murder rate didn't make much impact on the chart is because we don't allow access to atomic bombs. The reason our elephant trampling murder rate is so low is that we don't allow access to trained battle elephants. If we didn't allow access to guns...

that is moronic. why is the murder rate going down while the number of guns in circulation as well as the number of people carrying guns is increasing.

I think those who would take our guns away are in conspiracy with criminals and should be treated the same
 
80 was an exageration; but it makes a point. As for fire power. I'm talking about the firepower of the Aurora shooter and Columbine just to name two. And yes, there are certain types of weapons not availble to the public, and that's good.

more stupidity in that post. if civilians cops have a firearm-so should other civilians
 
80 was an exageration; but it makes a point. As for fire power. I'm talking about the firepower of the Aurora shooter and Columbine just to name two. And yes, there are certain types of weapons not availble to the public, and that's good.

Actually 80 would not be an exaggeration with a different means, and the people should have access to the same types of handheld weapons as might be used against us...
 
Back
Top Bottom