• 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 .
jet57 said:
If a certain weapon, is restricted from the public, how then is a criminal going to get it? Said weapons are traceable to their destination.
Click to expand...

Ummm, illegally?? You are aware that most illegal weapons can be made illegally I'm sure...
 
jet57 said:
If a certain weapon, is restricted from the public, how then is a criminal going to get it? Said weapons are traceable to their destination.
Click to expand...

If a certain narcotic, is restricted from the public, how then is a criminal going to get it.?

there are millions of soviet bloc weapons on the world market. You seem to labor under the delusion that people who can bring in TONS of COCAINE From South America cannot smuggle in some of the millions of AK 47s and other obsolete but still extremely effective small arms that the Russians have been dumping on the world market
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Ummm, illegally?? You are aware that most illegal weapons can be made illegally I'm sure...
Click to expand...

His argument is that if we ban citizens (i.e. those of us who follow the law) from having guns, criminals will not be able to get them. If you actually think about his argument, he is advocating a complete gun ban
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You missed the point. The courts are now used to shape society in lieu of the Constitutional process. It's a lot easier to get a few to agree as opposed to a vast majority...
Click to expand...

That may be true, however a constitutional amendment uses an entirely different process. (I'm sure you know that, so I don't see the tie.) The courts haven't been too good about shaping people's opinions that the 2nd Amendment is the end all, nor have they been to good at proving to people there's nothing to worry about either.
 
jet57 said:
That may be true, however a constitutional amendment uses an entirely different process. (I'm sure you know that, so I don't see the tie.) The courts haven't been too good about shaping people's opinions that the 2nd Amendment is the end all, nor have they been to good at proving to people there's nothing to worry about either.
Click to expand...

does anyone have a clue what that means? the Supreme COurt's only PROPER role is ruling on the constitutionality of laws
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Ummm, illegally?? You are aware that most illegal weapons can be made illegally I'm sure...
Click to expand...

No; you missed it: weapons that are restricted - are out of the hands of the public - so a crook isn't going to make one. The question is, under such restrictions, how is a crook going to get one. For instance, we haven't had any any crazies lobbing mortar rounds onto play grounds...
 
jet57 said:
That may be true, however a constitutional amendment uses an entirely different process. (I'm sure you know that, so I don't see the tie.) The courts haven't been too good about shaping people's opinions that the 2nd Amendment is the end all, nor have they been to good at proving to people there's nothing to worry about either.
Click to expand...

:doh I'm sorry you're not able to see the relationship between the court determining societal norms and society itself...
 
CRUE CAB said:
You have no right to a job. You don't have to work where a background check is required.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. If it is somehow offensive to provide your SSN to get a gun registered, it should be equally offensive to have to provide your SSN to get a job, yet virtually nobody is bothered by the latter.
 
Lursa said:
Employers are required by law to keep those things secure. It would be impossible to control if just anyone had your SSN.
Click to expand...

But not just anyone has your SSN. Employers aren't necessarily secure either, hackers could access your online employment records just as easily as they hack into Walmart.
 
jet57 said:
No; you missed it: weapons that are restricted - are out of the hands of the public - so a crook isn't going to make one. The question is, under such restrictions, how is a crook going to get one. For instance, we haven't had any any crazies lobbing mortar rounds onto play grounds...
Click to expand...

I can make a fully automatic weapon, but I wouldn't because it's illegal. Do you see the difference?
 
TurtleDude said:
does anyone have a clue what that means? the Supreme COurt's only PROPER role is ruling on the constitutionality of laws
Click to expand...

I thought you were an expert in the constitution? An amendment to the constitution has to go throiugh that process: that's what we're talking about here, not some silly law.
 
jet57 said:
No; you missed it: weapons that are restricted - are out of the hands of the public - so a crook isn't going to make one. The question is, under such restrictions, how is a crook going to get one. For instance, we haven't had any any crazies lobbing mortar rounds onto play grounds...
Click to expand...

cocaine is restricted. but crooks get cocaine all the time. and unlike firearms that are always going to be legally owned by government units, there is no legitimate market for cocaine

so your argument is moronic.



but you prove what I have said is true. You want to ban all guns. Handguns are used in most crimes that involve firearms so thinking you are limiting your gun banning to rarely used (one in 70 years) legal machine guns or the garment soiling "assault weapons" is silly.

Your argument is for a complete gun ban because you think that might stop some criminals
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I can make a fully automatic weapon, but I wouldn't because it's illegal. Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...

No I don't really. A crazy isn't going to try and make one and neither is a crook. Both are going to get their hands on whatever they think they need. If that supply is restricted, then so will be whatever damage they do.
 
jet57 said:
I thought you were an expert in the constitution? An amendment to the constitution has to go throiugh that process: that's what we're talking about here, not some silly law.
Click to expand...

the Supreme Court has no role in the amendment process. I know enough about the process to understand that
 
jet57 said:
No I don't really. A crazy isn't going to try and make one and neither is a crook. Both are going to get their hands on whatever they think they need. If that supply is restricted, then so will be whatever damage they do.
Click to expand...

Then what makes them crazy if they follow the laws?
 
jet57 said:
No I don't really. A crazy isn't going to try and make one and neither is a crook. Both are going to get their hands on whatever they think they need. If that supply is restricted, then so will be whatever damage they do.
Click to expand...

god that is stupid

the people LEAST likely to be deterred by a gun ban are

1) little old ladies who don't even have a speeding ticket

2) a hard working father of four whose only criminal record is not paying a parking ticket

3) a hard core gang banger who traffics illegal narcotics, stolen property and kiddie porn
 
TurtleDude said:
cocaine is restricted. but crooks get cocaine all the time. and unlike firearms that are always going to be legally owned by government units, there is no legitimate market for cocaine

so your argument is moronic.



but you prove what I have said is true. You want to ban all guns. Handguns are used in most crimes that involve firearms so thinking you are limiting your gun banning to rarely used (one in 70 years) legal machine guns or the garment soiling "assault weapons" is silly.

Your argument is for a complete gun ban because you think that might stop some criminals
Click to expand...

So, you're not an expert in the constitution then. So you know that my argument for an amendment is true then. So you're going to try and do an end run from a challenge on that point by chaging the subject.

Please.
 
jet57 said:
So, you're not an expert in the constitution then. So you know that my argument for an amendment is true then. So you're going to try and do an end run from a challenge on that point by chaging the subject.

Please.
Click to expand...

I am an expert on the constitution. If you actually understood that document you would have known that.

you want to ban guns, that is what we know. and you don't seem to know that the USSC has no role in the amendment process
 
AlabamaPaul said:
:doh I'm sorry you're not able to see the relationship between the court determining societal norms and society itself...
Click to expand...

I know what you're trying to say, but you're not tying it into an amendment process, so what you're saying is just sort of floating out there.
 
TurtleDude said:
the Supreme Court has no role in the amendment process. I know enough about the process to understand that
Click to expand...

I never said that the court did.
 
jet57 said:
I know what you're trying to say, but you're not tying it into an amendment process, so what you're saying is just sort of floating out there.
Click to expand...

I tied it earlier, and if this thread is still going tomorrow, I might join once again. Be well, I'm out...
 
TurtleDude said:
I am an expert on the constitution. If you actually understood that document you would have known that.

you want to ban guns, that is what we know. and you don't seem to know that the USSC has no role in the amendment process
Click to expand...

No you're not.
 
jet57 said:
No you're not.
Click to expand...

Your posts have not demonstrated you have any understanding of constitutional construction nor any training in constitutional law. Thus, your posts are not credible as to what I know.

The Second Amendment recognized a right the founders assumed-to a man-existed. that right was not one that would tolerate federal interference.
 
mdw99 said:
Could you tell me if you think the second amendment needs to be changed or not and give reasons why.
Click to expand...

Citizen of the USA here, and I chose "no". Simple reason being, it is not the law abiding, legal gun owners causing problems.

On a side note, imo, it's too bad you didn't make your poll read something like:

"I'm an American, and think the 2nd Amendment needs to be amended. "
"I'm an American, and think the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be amended. "

"I'm not an American, and think the 2nd Amendment needs to be amended. "
"I'm not an American, and think the 2nd Amendment doesn't need to be amended. "

Being it's a study, the breakdown could have been helpful, as some users don't list their location.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom