• 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 .
Montecresto said:
I don't know, you invoked 9/11 in your last post.
Click to expand...
Right, because terrorists hijacked aircraft and we were talking about Air Marshals on aircraft to prevent exactly that.

Montecresto said:
TurtleDude said:
Montecresto said:
We don't allow smoking at the gas pump either. I don't want anyone to have a firearm on a plane.
Click to expand...
given that terrorists can get guns on planes, I want armed Sky Marshals at least potentially on planes
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
 
Jerry said:
Right, because terrorists hijacked aircraft and we were talking about Air Marshals on aircraft to prevent exactly that.
Click to expand...

With box knives no less!
 
Montecresto said:
With box knives no less!
Click to expand...
Yup, and do you think flying the plane into a building would decompress the cabin?

I think a couple air marshals with fragmenting ammo is the safer bet.
 
Montecresto said:
I don't understand why you're having difficulty with this.
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't too often that I encounter someone who argues that two mutually exclusive interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are actually perfectly compatible and actually commingled.

Montecresto said:
We have a natural individual right of self defense and we have a natural and practical right of collective defense.
Click to expand...

And I wonder if you haven't been asleep for a few decades; under the collective right theory, we have no right to personal self defense and whatever collective defense right we have, it can only be exercised when you are a member of and acting under the authority of, an official state militia.

Montecresto said:
but collectively we need police and military practicing the collective right to bear arms for societal defense.
Click to expand...

Sigh . . . Police and the military are armed and duty bound by authority of laws, not by any exercise of a right. Your position depends on total mutation / misapplication / misassignment of legal concepts.

Montecresto said:
This is really simple, and both positions are solid.
Click to expand...

No, its neither and quite laughable really. You hold your position without regard and in spite of the well established understandings of the collective right theory and its legal action on the right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

I should have written you off and ignored your fantasies when your initial reply was "Well, I just disagree with you. In my estimation, they both are strong arguments" without any reasoned argument of why I'm wrong and you are right. I should know that the impact legal argument has on people who dwell in a world of rainbow unicorns, is quite limited.
 
Last edited:
Buck Ewer said:
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.
Click to expand...

"When too much still ain't enough any restriction sounds like the end of the ****ing world". Hmmm..that kind of sound like when Liberal/Progressive lemmings complain about tax rates not being high enough or anyone not paying their fair share.
 
Willie Orwontee said:
Well, it isn't too often that I encounter someone who argues that two mutually exclusive interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are actually perfectly compatible and actually commingled.



And I wonder if you haven't been asleep for a few decades; under the collective right theory, we have no right to personal self defense and whatever collective defense right we have, it can only be exercised when you are a member of and acting under the authority of, an official state militia.



Sigh . . . Police and the military are armed and duty bound by authority of laws, not by any exercise of a right. Your position depends on total mutation / misapplication / misassignment of legal concepts.



No, its neither and quite laughable really. You hold your position without regard and in spite of the well established understandings of the collective right theory and its legal action on the right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

I should have written you off and ignored your fantasies when your initial reply was "Well, I just disagree with you. In my estimation, they both are strong arguments" without any reasoned argument of why I'm wrong and you are right. I should know that the impact legal argument has on people who dwell in a world of rainbow unicorns, is quite limited.
Click to expand...

Well now, even with your personal insults aside, besides the group of lawyers at the UCLA, there are many educated people, as well as opinionated people such as yourself that disagree with you. And considering various supreme courts have viewed this both ways, it's obviously not the dogma you espouse. Funny you wouldn't consider the second amendment to be law though. The militia, National Guard, army (military) are bound by that law as a necessity of the security of the State. And the individual aspect of self defense, whether you agree or not is also acknowledged by the second amendment, and it's natural enough as to be a given, with or without the second amendments acknowledgment of it. As long as there has been humans, they have sought individual and collective defense. I disagree with any stated conflict between the two.
 
Jerry said:
Yup, and do you think flying the plane into a building would decompress the cabin?

I think a couple air marshals with fragmenting ammo is the safer bet.
Click to expand...

And I think your just bored. Terrorists won't be using fragmenting bullets!
 
TurtleDude said:
yes, we have seen that silliness argued before. as I noted it is like saying THOU SHALL NOT STEAL does not prevent STEALING because STEALING is not mentioned
Click to expand...

Its not "like" anything . It is what it is. This is this - this isn't something else. And I cannot find even one so called Founder using the term INFRINGEMENTS. Can you?

The Amendment bars the right from being INFRINGED. IT says nothing about your modernist concept of INFRINGEMENTS which you interpret as any effort to limit or control firearms.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think its the decent people that is subject to dispute.

or perhaps you'd been better off using HONEST people
Click to expand...

Both apply. There is a ton of honest and decent people in this nation who support people having guns for self defense and sport but also support reasonable laws controlling firearms. They are indeed honest and decent people.

Ronald Reagan summed such folks up perfectly.


“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.
 
Lursa said:
Um...there's a few of us in this thread....backing the 2A unreservedly.
Click to expand...

Um.....so what? Are you in favor of Obamacare? How about the Hobby Lobby ruling? Do you think bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings? What other oppressive leftist policies do you support?
 
countryboy said:
Um.....so what? Are you in favor of Obamacare? How about the Hobby Lobby ruling? Do you think bakeries should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings? What other oppressive leftist policies do you support?
Click to expand...

Mornin CB, health care needs reform, whether or not the PPACA is the answer of course is a matter of debate. The issue of bakeries cooking for gay people is a matter for the courts to decide, not leftists.
 
Montecresto said:
Mornin CB, health care needs reform, whether or not the PPACA is the answer of course is a matter of debate. The issue of bakeries cooking for gay people is a matter for the courts to decide, not leftists.
Click to expand...
Mornin' Montecresto. :coffeepap

Forcing people to do something against their will, is never the answer. I was just throwing out examples of abhorrent, oppressive policies that leftists tend to support. Freedom of association shouldn't have to be decided in court. :wink:
 
countryboy said:
Mornin' Montecresto. :coffeepap

Forcing people to do something against their will, is never the answer. I was just throwing out examples of abhorrent, oppressive policies that leftists tend to support. Freedom of association shouldn't have to be decided in court. :wink:
Click to expand...

Lol, people have been forcing me to do things against my will since I was born and political persuasion has had nothing to do with it! Many consider the gays and bakeries issue to be about discrimination, not association.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, take out the underlined part, it will make it more clear.
Click to expand...

that would make it more clear but by no means would it make it clear. Arms is a vague term and we have essentially limited it to small firearms, we have restricted who can buy them, where they can be used. Without defining arms and what constitutes infringement it will be just as messy as it is now. This is the problem with the "read the constitution" arguments arms can mean small arms as we have defined it or it could be defined most weapons up to and including nuclear weapons and there are cogent arguments to be made for both sides.
 
GBFAN said:
Are you f$$King serious? You can't look it up yourself? Give me a break ...

It's really easy ... go to Google .. type Merriam-Webster ... go to the first link ... type in the word i-n-f-r-i-n-g-e-d .... read it for yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes - I am 100% completely serious. Do you have a link for that definition you supplied? Where did you get it from?
 
Jerry said:
You and your loaded questions.


My carrying a gun doesn't victimize you, I don't assume I have the right I know I have the right, and we aren't talking about private property.

So please, take your bull**** elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Your inability to answer a simple question exposes the intellectual vapidness of your statement.
 
countryboy said:
Are you serious? Various gun bans have happened around the country as well as the federal level.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am 100% serious. I am asking for specifics.

Again, are you able to cite examples where the government created an environment where the people were not able to keep and bear arms.

I stated that the DC handgun law was such an example but one could easily argue that I am wrong since it still allowed for long guns to fulfill that right. So what are your other examples from reality here in the USA?
 
TurtleDude said:
nukes are not arms within the meaning of the 2A, and such weapons have clear interstate and international ramifications
Click to expand...

Actually nuclear weapons are indeed arms and Pirate corrected you on this with lots of evidence when this came up before.
 
haymarket said:
Yes, I am 100% serious. I am asking for specifics.

Again, are you able to cite examples where the government created an environment where the people were not able to keep and bear arms.

I stated that the DC handgun law was such an example but one could easily argue that I am wrong since it still allowed for long guns to fulfill that right. So what are your other examples from reality here in the USA?
Click to expand...
The Constitution makes no mention of "creating an environment".it quite simply states, "...shall not be infringed" period. End of story.

You really would have much more credibility if you simply said you disagree with the 2A, and wish to abolish it. Instead of performing all manner of mental gymnastics, in a lame attempt to contort the 2A to your leftist ideology. But I guess asking a lib not to be tyrannical, is like asking a leopard to change it's spots.
 
haymarket said:
Actually nuclear weapons are indeed arms and Pirate corrected you on this with lots of evidence when this came up before.
Click to expand...

Yes, he claimed that but no constitutional scholar supports that and Goshin also explained why using Nukes is a silly argument. The second amendment dealt with individual arms capable of being borne by individuals. SO grasping for support is perhaps to be expected but its without merit
 
haymarket said:
Both apply. There is a ton of honest and decent people in this nation who support people having guns for self defense and sport but also support reasonable laws controlling firearms. They are indeed honest and decent people.

Ronald Reagan summed such folks up perfectly.


“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

~Ronald Reagan, at his birthday celebration in 1989.
Click to expand...

Reagan was senile by then and his stupidity means nothing to me. He also has no credibility at that time as to what was needed for "home defense" because the 2A is not limited to "home defense"

there is no reasonable argument for banning legal machine guns given there is no evidence they are more likely to be used criminally than for lawful purposes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom