• 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 .
The image you quoted shows the exact opposite, at least among developed countries.

I'm more than happy to reduce poverty too.

Having a gun enhances your ability to commit a crime. The same way we have laws against drug paraphernalia or lock picking tools, guns -- handguns especially -- are tools to commit acts of violence against another citizen.

I'm not sure if you're purposely trying to misrepresent the data or if you're just unaware of what correlation means. If there were a correlation you'd see most of the high gun ownership countries to the left and the lower ones to the right, but that's not at all what we see. It's also dishonest to compare it only to a few select 1st world countries instead of the whole world, because you're intentionally excluding the very same poverty that makes it a violent country in the first place.

table1.jpg

There is no positive correlation with gun ownership rate and overall muder rate. Feel free to check any of the data in the links.

If the world were different and you were right that it wasn't poverty causing crime, but rather guns and their magazine sizes, why is it that the poor parts of the city, state, country, and world are almost always dramatically more violent than their richer companions?
 
Well I agree with you that the collective right is a strong argument. But the individual right is equally strong and therefore IMO, both should be advanced.


The "collective right" (actually an amalgam of the "militia right" and "state's right" theories) was first inserted in the federal courts in 1942 through two lower court opinions; Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) respectively.

At that time they were already dead theories for if the "collective right" theory was true, -- that as US v Tot said, the 2nd Amendment, "unlike those [other amendments] providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power", then the 2nd had been dead letter for 39 years because the Dick Act in 1903, which negated state militia powers was a REAL "encroachment by the federal power" that rendered the protection spoken of, to the fossil record . .

If the "collective right" theories (any of them) were true, the anti-individual right argument would be that the 2nd means nothing today to anyone because there are no state militia powers remaining to protect. All this goofy sideshow they engage in wouldn't ever be trotted out because legally, the 2nd would have zero legal effect on any matter before any court.

Another often overlooked but deadly to the collective right side is that collective right proponents will never be able to explain why there has never been a "collective" or government entity claiming 2nd Amendment protection or ever granted standing to argue a 2nd Amendment claim . . . The only parties ever granted standing in any court to claim a 2nd Amendment immunity have been individuals.

The collective right interpretation was smoke and mirrors when it was first invented in 1942 and has even less weight today.
 
Well I agree with you that the collective right is a strong argument. But the individual right is equally strong and therefore IMO, both should be advanced.
The two are arguably conflicting rather than mutual.
Except for where the Court recognized the individual right to bear arms for individual self defense from the KKK by two former slaves, then US citizens in 1873 Louisiana, a state that at the time had no organized militia, it being disbanded by Congress . . .

But hey, who's really reading the opinion of the Court?
I'm not claiming to be a scholar of court history, but the ACLU usually does fairly well at interpreting them, based on their legal record.
I'm not sure if you're purposely trying to misrepresent the data or if you're just unaware of what correlation means. If there were a correlation you'd see most of the high gun ownership countries to the left and the lower ones to the right, but that's not at all what we see. It's also dishonest to compare it only to a few select 1st world countries instead of the whole world, because you're intentionally excluding the very same poverty that makes it a violent country in the first place.

table1.jpg

There is no positive correlation with gun ownership rate and overall muder rate. Feel free to check any of the data in the links.

If the world were different and you were right that it wasn't poverty causing crime, but rather guns and their magazine sizes, why is it that the poor parts of the city, state, country, and world are almost always dramatically more violent than their richer companions?
But the US isn't a poverty stricken county. It doesn't make sense to compare us to a poverty stricken country. Our GDP has much more in common with the nations we're compared to.

I understand what correlation means:

"A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things."

The graph I linked to demonstrates a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things. You'd prefer to distort that balance by including violent, impoverished nations, but that's not what we're discussing. Honduras isn't as comparable to America as Sweden is.
 
The two are arguably conflicting rather than mutual.

I'm not claiming to be a scholar of court history, but the ACLU usually does fairly well at interpreting them, based on their legal record.

But the US isn't a poverty stricken county. It doesn't make sense to compare us to a poverty stricken country. Our GDP has much more in common with the nations we're compared to.

I understand what correlation means:

"A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things."

The graph I linked to demonstrates a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things. You'd prefer to distort that balance by including violent, impoverished nations, but that's not what we're discussing. Honduras isn't as comparable to America as Sweden is.

Even your original chart doesn't show a correlation, which I pointed out. The gold and black bars would grow towards the left and not be a scrambled mess like it is. You can't just say there's a correlation because we're highest.

I've asked you a question twice now and you've ignored, but hell, I'll try it one last time. If your theory is correct and it's the existence of guns and not poverty that primarily drives violent crime, why in virtually every instance is the poor part of somewhere substantially more violent than the richer parts? Why does Switzerland have 4 times less violent crime than Germany even though it has dramatically more weapons?

How exactly is reducing magazine sizes going to prevent violent crime?
 
Even your original chart doesn't show a correlation, which I pointed out. The gold and black bars would grow towards the left and not be a scrambled mess like it is. You can't just say there's a correlation because we're highest.

I've asked you a question twice now and you've ignored, but hell, I'll try it one last time. If your theory is correct and it's the existence of guns and not poverty that primarily drives violent crime, why in virtually every instance is the poor part of somewhere substantially more violent than the richer parts? Why does Switzerland have 4 times less violent crime than Germany even though it has dramatically more weapons?

How exactly is reducing magazine sizes going to prevent violent crime?
I disagree that the chart is a scrambled mess. I find the data to be consistent and compelling.

I consider Switzerland to be a outlier, why do you consider the US to be an outlier rather than Switzerland?
 
Telling a gun fetishist that there will be a cap on their magazine volume is like telling an alcoholic that they are on a two drink limit.
When too much still ain't enough any restriction sounds like the end of the ****ing world.

You are very wrong. I am not into guns. I own a few and each has a specific purpose. And I consider them like my car....a tool, something I do the minimum to to keep running properly. Your broad assumption is entirely incorrect for gun 'owners.'

There are legitimate reasons to have larger capacity magazines and it's insulting to think other people should be able to tell us what we need to keep ourselves save.

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.
 
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


I say yes.Mostly to strengthen the individual right to own guns and to add the immediate removal from office,permanent ban from elected and appointed office and lengthy prison sentences for politicians who enact anti-2nd amendment laws.
 
The two are arguably conflicting rather than mutual.

I'm not claiming to be a scholar of court history, but the ACLU usually does fairly well at interpreting them, based on their legal record.

But the US isn't a poverty stricken county. It doesn't make sense to compare us to a poverty stricken country. Our GDP has much more in common with the nations we're compared to.

I understand what correlation means:

"A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things."

The graph I linked to demonstrates a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things. You'd prefer to distort that balance by including violent, impoverished nations, but that's not what we're discussing. Honduras isn't as comparable to America as Sweden is.

I disagree. Why in the world would there be conflict between both the individual and collective right to security and defense on a personal and societal level?
 
I disagree. Why in the world would there be conflict between both the individual and collective right to security and defense on a personal and societal level?

Collective security is often undermined by individual security.
 
The "collective right" (actually an amalgam of the "militia right" and "state's right" theories) was first inserted in the federal courts in 1942 through two lower court opinions; Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) respectively.

At that time they were already dead theories for if the "collective right" theory was true, -- that as US v Tot said, the 2nd Amendment, "unlike those [other amendments] providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power", then the 2nd had been dead letter for 39 years because the Dick Act in 1903, which negated state militia powers was a REAL "encroachment by the federal power" that rendered the protection spoken of, to the fossil record . .

If the "collective right" theories (any of them) were true, the anti-individual right argument would be that the 2nd means nothing today to anyone because there are no state militia powers remaining to protect. All this goofy sideshow they engage in wouldn't ever be trotted out because legally, the 2nd would have zero legal effect on any matter before any court.

Another often overlooked but deadly to the collective right side is that collective right proponents will never be able to explain why there has never been a "collective" or government entity claiming 2nd Amendment protection or ever granted standing to argue a 2nd Amendment claim . . . The only parties ever granted standing in any court to claim a 2nd Amendment immunity have been individuals.

The collective right interpretation was smoke and mirrors when it was first invented in 1942 and has even less weight today.

Well, I just disagree with you. In my estimation, they both are strong arguments. The militia clause, lends itself nicely to the collective and the individual right fits nicely with the individual spirit of several of the other amendments. Frankly, I fail to understand the need for either or. Defense, whether police, National Guard or Military is both rational and practical. And defense of ones self is also rational and practical, and, even natural. And nothing or no one should be able to deny that to anybody. Like Lord of Planar has in his sig line, "I carry a gun because a police officer is too heavy"!
 
My brain isn't tabulating that one. Say it again, differently.

Example: we don't allow firearms on planes. Collectively we're safer, individually we're safer, even if individually we lack one avenue of self-protection.
 
Illegally possessed handguns are guns that were once legally possessed. Reducing access to legal guns reduces access to illegal guns.

so banning legal guns in chicago decreased the amount of illegal ones? the war on drugs has proven your claim silly and punishing the lawful users of items in a hope to deprive the criminally minded is specious
 
so banning legal guns in chicago decreased the amount of illegal ones? the war on drugs has proven your claim silly and punishing the lawful users of items in a hope to deprive the criminally minded is specious
Illegal guns start their lives as legal guns. With the exception of prescription medicine abuse illegal drugs start their lives as illegal drugs.

That's not an equivalent comparison.
 
Example: we don't allow firearms on planes. Collectively we're safer, individually we're safer, even if individually we lack one avenue of self-protection.

We don't allow smoking at the gas pump either. I don't want anyone to have a firearm on a plane.
 
Illegal guns start their lives as legal guns. With the exception of prescription medicine abuse illegal drugs start their lives as illegal drugs.

That's not an equivalent comparison.

and the argument you make is moronic because you suggest punishing millions of lawful gun owners to perhaps stop a few criminals.
 
We don't allow smoking at the gas pump either. I don't want anyone to have a firearm on a plane.

given that terrorists can get guns on planes, I want armed Sky Marshals at least potentially on planes
 
Illegal guns start their lives as legal guns. With the exception of prescription medicine abuse illegal drugs start their lives as illegal drugs.

That's not an equivalent comparison.

That's ridiculous, the only way a legal gun becomes illegal is if it becomes banned by law. A individual using a legal gun to commit a crime becomes a criminal, not the gun, the gun is still legal.
 
given that terrorists can get guns on planes, I want armed Sky Marshals at least potentially on planes

Somebody has dropped the ball majorly if anybody is allowed to carry a firearm onto a plane. What happens if a bullet prices the fuselage of a pressurized plane?
 
My brain isn't tabulating that one. Say it again, differently.

I get it. And if the others in the 'collective' dont want to take individual responsibility for their security, that's their problem. They do have the choice.

See my signature below, in blue. :)
 
I get it. And if the others in the 'collective' dont want to take individual responsibility for their security, that's their problem. They do have the choice.

See my signature below, in blue. :)

I can't disagree with that.
 
Somebody has dropped the ball majorly if anybody is allowed to carry a firearm onto a plane. What happens if a bullet prices the fuselage of a pressurized plane?

That's a myth. It will not suddenly depressurize the entire plane and cause it to crash.
 
The Second Amendment doesn't need amending, because it really isn't the job of legislators or judges to make amendments so that its easier for people to understand.

My surgeon didn't dumb down my appendectomy so that I could understand it. The Supreme Court shouldn't be dumbing down the Constitutions so that idiots can understand it, either.

Considering the constitution was supposedly written so that a 4th grader could understand it, there is no excuse for misinterpreting it.
 
That's a myth. It will not suddenly depressurize the entire plane and cause it to crash.

Where did I say that it would? I asked Turtle Dude the question, he seems very knowledgeable on guns.
 
Somebody has dropped the ball majorly if anybody is allowed to carry a firearm onto a plane. What happens if a bullet prices the fuselage of a pressurized plane?

its not what you think from having watched "GOLDFINGER" one too many times!
 
Back
Top Bottom