• 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 .
I would be happy to read the link. And happy if it were true. Yes, I believe the 2A means without restrictions but like it or not, I still believe that the intent of the amendment was to prevent tyranny. Possibly because owning firearms as part of day to day life was just the 'norm' at the time.
Certainly preventing tyranny is one of the benefits of an unfettered right to keep and bear arms, but the second half of the 2A is crystal clear.

Here's the article. J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
 
I understand your argument, but you're contradicting yourself.

You're claiming that with reducing access to guns that human nature still won't be subverted; murder will still occur, with or without (legally available) guns . You'll use your (legal) gun possession as a deterrent, both proactively -- preventing potential criminals from considering violation of your property by fear of you being armed, and retroactively -- physically attacking them with (legal) guns to prevent them from violating your property.

Fair summary?

You also appear to be arguing that it's human nature to take any means to protect one's property and that violent acts including murder are also human nature.

If that's all true, then decreasing legal guns won't stop you from getting one to defend your home, or give the criminal any reason to believe that you're less likely to have one, or be any less prepared to use one. That status quo is seemingly not changed, only access is decreased, and with that, less weapons are available for all parties to continue the war we're having on one another.

Decreasing access for legal owners doesn't do anything. There are 300million guns in this country how do you control them?
 
No, it isn't. My argument is that better weaponry equals better ability to protect one's self. Regardless of nature.


Your misrepresentation of my argument shows you either dint understand or must resort to logical fallacy to feel like you are making a point.

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

Decreasing access for legal owners doesn't do anything. There are 300million guns in this country how do you control them?
While I agree it's difficult to address a 300 million piece problem, it's easier than dealing with it in a decade or two when it's 400 million or 500 million piece problem.
 
What problem?

firearm-OECD-UN-data3_washpost.jpg


That problem.

I'm of the belief that a lot of that has to do with this:

279px-Guns.png
 
firearm-OECD-UN-data3_washpost.jpg


That problem.

I'm of the belief that a lot of that has to do with this:

279px-Guns.png




The problem is you're cherry-picking your data to support your argument. Try it from the raw data and you get a different picture.


I will list the top nations in order of rates of intentional homicide, also showing their rates of private gun ownership, then show the USA by contrast.

Name.... homicide rate per 100,000.... gun ownership rate per 100.

Honduras... 91.6... 6.2
El Salvador... 69.2 ... 5.8
Cote d'Ivoire... 56.9 ... not listed
Jamaica... 52.2 ... 8.1
Venezuela ... 45.1 ... 10.7
Belize ... 41.1 ... 10
Virgin Islands ... 39.2 ... not listed
Guatemala ... 38.5 ... 13.1
skipping down a bit...
Columbia ... 33.4 ... 5.9
South Africa... 31.8 ... 12.7
skipping down some more...
Greenland ... 19.2 ... not listed
Russia ... 10.2 ... 8.9
skipping down some more...
Ukraine.... 5.2 ... 6.6
Cuba... 5.0 ... 4.8

And finally, well over halfway down the list...

USA... 4.2 ... 88.8


Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As it turns out, the United States does not have that high of a homicide rate compared to most other countries, and given the amount of privately owned arms we are FAR more peaceable than most on a per-gun-owned basis.

OBVIOUSLY, gun ownership is NOT directly linked to murder rates.



To go further and compare and contrast two 1st-world nations with VERY different rates of gun ownership... try the UK and Canada.

I did a little checking. It is believed that there are between 7 million and 11 million guns, privately owned, in Canada, among a population of about 35 million... and there are also reports that there may be millions more guns that were never registered or "went missing".

So, Canada is not exactly short of firearms. You have far more per-capita than most European nations, five times as many per-capita as England and Wales, and come in 13th in the world in per-capita gun ownership.

Sources:
HOW MANY GUNS ARE THERE IN CANADA
Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada has five times as many guns per capita as the UK, but the murder rate is barely any higher.... 1.6 compared to 1.2, so murder rate is clearly not proportional to gun ownership rates.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world, 91 per 100,000, as compared to the US at a mere 4.2....

Yet the US has a gun ownership ratio of over 88 per 100 residents, while Honduras' rate of private gun ownership is a mere 6.2 per 100... far far lower than Canada's, about the same as England.


Clearly, private gun ownership and murder rates are NOT directly linked.

As I've said, from my studies it appears that all nations and/or localities with a high murder rate have some or all of the following:

Bad government
Poverty
Drug trade
Gangs or other violent factions
Excessive population density

Put a high level on three or four of those, and you have lots of murders and violent crimes.

There's simply no logic in focusing on the tool used for violence when it is so obvious that this is not the causal factor.
 
The problem is you're cherry-picking your data to support your argument. Try it from the raw data and you get a different picture.


I will list the top nations in order of rates of intentional homicide, also showing their rates of private gun ownership, then show the USA by contrast.

Name.... homicide rate per 100,000.... gun ownership rate per 100.

Honduras... 91.6... 6.2
El Salvador... 69.2 ... 5.8
Cote d'Ivoire... 56.9 ... not listed
Jamaica... 52.2 ... 8.1
Venezuela ... 45.1 ... 10.7
Belize ... 41.1 ... 10
Virgin Islands ... 39.2 ... not listed
Guatemala ... 38.5 ... 13.1
skipping down a bit...
Columbia ... 33.4 ... 5.9
South Africa... 31.8 ... 12.7
skipping down some more...
Greenland ... 19.2 ... not listed
Russia ... 10.2 ... 8.9
skipping down some more...
Ukraine.... 5.2 ... 6.6
Cuba... 5.0 ... 4.8

And finally, well over halfway down the list...

USA... 4.2 ... 88.8


Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As it turns out, the United States does not have that high of a homicide rate compared to most other countries, and given the amount of privately owned arms we are FAR more peaceable than most on a per-gun-owned basis.

OBVIOUSLY, gun ownership is NOT directly linked to murder rates.



To go further and compare and contrast two 1st-world nations with VERY different rates of gun ownership... try the UK and Canada.

I did a little checking. It is believed that there are between 7 million and 11 million guns, privately owned, in Canada, among a population of about 35 million... and there are also reports that there may be millions more guns that were never registered or "went missing".

So, Canada is not exactly short of firearms. You have far more per-capita than most European nations, five times as many per-capita as England and Wales, and come in 13th in the world in per-capita gun ownership.

Sources:
HOW MANY GUNS ARE THERE IN CANADA
Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada has five times as many guns per capita as the UK, but the murder rate is barely any higher.... 1.6 compared to 1.2, so murder rate is clearly not proportional to gun ownership rates.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world, 91 per 100,000, as compared to the US at a mere 4.2....

Yet the US has a gun ownership ratio of over 88 per 100 residents, while Honduras' rate of private gun ownership is a mere 6.2 per 100... far far lower than Canada's, about the same as England.


Clearly, private gun ownership and murder rates are NOT directly linked.

As I've said, from my studies it appears that all nations and/or localities with a high murder rate have some or all of the following:

Bad government
Poverty
Drug trade
Gangs or other violent factions
Excessive population density

Put a high level on three or four of those, and you have lots of murders and violent crimes.

There's simply no logic in focusing on the tool used for violence when it is so obvious that this is not the causal factor.

Compared to other first world nations we do though. Sure, we're not as violent as Honduras is, but that's not a particularly compelling argument. Our goal should be to be better than not just the Honduras' of the world, but of the Germany and Japans out there.
 
Nope. All we need is a Supreme Court who is not a slave to right wing ideology and will not let than determine how they interpret it. And elections and time will take care of that.
 
Compared to other first world nations we do though. Sure, we're not as violent as Honduras is, but that's not a particularly compelling argument. Our goal should be to be better than not just the Honduras' of the world, but of the Germany and Japans out there.


I don't wish to be Germany, nor Japan.




Comparing nations tends to be apples and orangutans anyway.


But looking at various jurisdictions, there is no reason to believe gun control leads to any decline in violence.

Rates of violence are chiefly a result of


Poverty
Corrupt/ineffective gov't
Gangs/tribes/factions
drug trade
cultural traits.


After studying this issue for many years, I am convinced of that.
 
I understand your argument, but you're contradicting yourself.

You're claiming that with reducing access to guns that human nature still won't be subverted; murder will still occur, with or without (legally available) guns . You'll use your (legal) gun possession as a deterrent, both proactively -- preventing potential criminals from considering violation of your property by fear of you being armed, and retroactively -- physically attacking them with (legal) guns to prevent them from violating your property.

Fair summary?

You also appear to be arguing that it's human nature to take any means to protect one's property and that violent acts including murder are also human nature.

If that's all true, then decreasing legal guns won't stop you from getting one to defend your home, or give the criminal any reason to believe that you're less likely to have one, or be any less prepared to use one. That status quo is seemingly not changed, only access is decreased, and with that, less weapons are available for all parties to continue the war we're having on one another.

The gun death rate correlates to the percentage of gun owners if you break it down state by state.

ownership-death630.png

well mother jones is a joke and it ignores legal vs illegal gun owners
 
Oh, my bad.

Ahem..

Please post your links to who is killing people with .50cal machine guns.

PLease show me where I said that a .50 was being used to kill people.
 
And how would they be prevented in those places?

By - not - allowing - 100 round magazines - or - the - purchase - of - 15 - or - 30 - round - clips - or - full - auto.

It - is - important - to - follow - a - conversation - so - that - you - will - understand - what - is - being - discussed - and - in - what - context - so - that - you - can - make - an - appropriate - comment - or - ask - an - question. O - k - ?
 
By - not - allowing - 100 round magazines - or - the - purchase - of - 15 - or - 30 - round - clips - or - full - auto.

It - is - important - to - follow - a - conversation - so - that - you - will - understand - what - is - being - discussed - and - in - what - context - so - that - you - can - make - an - appropriate - comment - or - ask - an - question. O - k - ?

almost every modern 9mm pistol comes with 15-19 round MAGAZINE

you want to ban those

you seem to want to ban things or practices that you are unable to establish are harmful
 
PLease show me where I said that a .50 was being used to kill people.
Ok.
The gun nuts put their right to carry and .50 cal machine guns over and above the citizen’s right to a peaceful existence with all of the nuts killing people.
If you're now saying that no one is killing anyone with .50cal machine-guns then that wasn't really a relevant thing for you to bring up.

So was that a red herring or are people actually committing crimes with .50cal machine-guns?
 
Ok.

If you're now saying that no one is killing anyone with .50cal machine-guns then that wasn't really a relevant thing for you to bring up.

So was that a red herring or are people actually committing crimes with .50cal machine-guns?

do you think ACTUAL criminal misuse is what motivates the gun banners?
 
Ok.

If you're now saying that no one is killing anyone with .50cal machine-guns then that wasn't really a relevant thing for you to bring up.

So was that a red herring or are people actually committing crimes with .50cal machine-guns?

No, the red herring is you not being able to read and interpret the language. There are clubs for people with .50s. I was at a range where a guy had a home made semi auto .50. Why does someone need a .50? And under the gun nut banner; that and carrying around a weapon supercedes the general public's desire for a safer society.

carry on
 
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

The language of the second amendment is arcane and if it were to be changed the language could be cleaned up so that everyone can plainly understand that owning firearms is an absolute right which is granted to us by our bill of rights.
 
No, the red herring is you not being able to read and interpret the language. There are clubs for people with .50s. I was at a range where a guy had a home made semi auto .50. Why does someone need a .50? And under the gun nut banner; that and carrying around a weapon supercedes the general public's desire for a safer society.

carry on

I get so tired of people ignorant about shooting sports spewing the crap about what someone else needs.

and since no one has been criminally shot with a 50 caliber there is absolutely no reason to ban them

and even if some criminal gangs perpetrated crimes with a 50 BMG, that is no reason to punish the law abiding.

I couldn't give a damn what undefined or unknown hand wringing ninnies desire. You don't have a Right to be free of inane fear. You have a civic right not to have someone criminally attack you or menace you. someone merely owning or using a weapon lawfully is not grounds for someone to demand a ban because they soil their garments over the mere thought that someone has a 50 BMG rifle
 
I get so tired of people ignorant about shooting sports spewing the crap about what someone else needs.

and since no one has been criminally shot with a 50 caliber there is absolutely no reason to ban them

and even if some criminal gangs perpetrated crimes with a 50 BMG, that is no reason to punish the law abiding.

I couldn't give a damn what undefined or unknown hand wringing ninnies desire. You don't have a Right to be free of inane fear. You have a civic right not to have someone criminally attack you or menace you. someone merely owning or using a weapon lawfully is not grounds for someone to demand a ban because they soil their garments over the mere thought that someone has a 50 BMG rifle

You just can't pay attentiona at all can you. How 'bout becoming an expert in reading: that'll be refreshing.
 
You just can't pay attentiona at all can you. How 'bout becoming an expert in reading: that'll be refreshing.

:lamo

irony meter just hit critical mass
 
By - not - allowing - 100 round magazines - or - the - purchase - of - 15 - or - 30 - round - clips - or - full - auto.

It - is - important - to - follow - a - conversation - so - that - you - will - understand - what - is - being - discussed - and - in - what - context - so - that - you - can - make - an - appropriate - comment - or - ask - an - question. O - k - ?

Wow, magazine capacity bans? That sucks, since my first carry weapon was 17+1 and every single shot could be needed if I was attacked by more than one person. The cops even miss half the time...just watch the videos where they (and suspects) shoot loads of rounds and never even hit each other! Out on my own at nite OR in my home? (And I carry an extra mag)

(17+1 is a standard for several models of fullsize 9mm semi-autos....not extreme...the norm)

And you would limit me to 10 rounds, or less? You can go to H e double hockey sticks bub. Nothing like displaying gross indifference for my safety.
 
Wow, magazine capacity bans? That sucks, since my first carry weapon was 17+1 and every single shot could be needed if I was attacked by more than one person. The cops even miss half the time...just watch the videos where they (and suspects) shoot loads of rounds and never even hit each other! Out on my own at nite OR in my home? (And I carry an extra mag)

And you would limit me to 10 rounds, or less? You can go to H e double hockey sticks bub. Nothing like displaying gross indifference for my safety.

Anyone who supports magazine limits is in a criminal conspiracy with armed criminals and should be seen as such
 
PLease show me where I said that a .50 was being used to kill people.

Yeah Jerry! What's wrong with you?!

That round is way too expensive for casual killing :)
 
Yeah Jerry! What's wrong with you?!

That round is way too expensive for casual killing :)

yeah If I despise someone enough to want to off them, I am not going to waste 6 bucks on a good 50 caliber shell:mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom