• 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 .
Stop trying to deflect and avoid answering the challenge made to you to prove your charge that Reagan was senile when he made the statement. Please do present your medical evidence of this claim of fact.

the irony in this claim is hilarious. your posts constantly avoid answering straight questions

why does Reagan matter at all

was he a constitutional scholar-NO

was he an expert on firearms-NO

was he a military expert-NO

he doesn't matter
 
Beautiful, talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face!!

that makes no sense in response to what I wrote. care to explain it a bit better

its fun seeing Democrat Party apologists pretend that because an out of office Reagan started kissing up to Brady, that means the GOP is as bad on gun rights as the Democrat part
 
The right to keep and bear arms that the Second Amendment guarantees is fundamental, and it existed before the Constitution. That raises the question how it very well could be amended. The wording is purely negative, telling the United States it may not infringe this long-recognized, fundamental right.

What would an amendment say--yes, you can infringe it as you see fit? It seems to me that the idea of amending the Bill of Rights, which tells government what it may not do, necessarily involves giving government power to dispense or withhold basic rights. And in that way, it violates the essence of the Bill of Rights.
 
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.


Men dont need muscle cars either. People dont 'need' 4-wheelers, they can get around perfectly find with a 4WD SUV.

Who needs a $6000 Fendi bag? Did I miss where anyone needs personal 4 or 6 seater airplanes?

In America, it's called 'free will' and 'personal liberty.' (And before you try it, lots of these things, named and unnamed, can kill if used improperly).
 
I'm, not sure that's true. They were practical men. The revised their first effort to strengthen federal power, not limit it more. They too, had they lived two hundred years, have likely revised many of their thoughts as they learned more. It's unlikely they would have stayed static.

we can always speculate and I suspect if someone told the founders that a future president would use the commerce clause to do the stuff FDR did, they would be calling for a rope and a high tree
 
Men dont need muscle cars either. People dont 'need' 4-wheelers, they can get around perfectly find with a 4WD SUV.

Who needs a $6000 Fendi bag? Did I miss where anyone needs personal 4 or 6 seater airplanes?

In America, it's called 'free will' and 'personal liberty.' (And before you try it, lots of these things, named and unnamed, can kill if used improperly).

as long as there are people who want to strip us of our rights for dishonest or nefarious reasons, we need to be well armed
 
we can always speculate and I suspect if someone told the founders that a future president would use the commerce clause to do the stuff FDR did, they would be calling for a rope and a high tree

Perhaps, assuming they have no context and no knowledge of the history, which is how most people look at it in these hypotheticals. I think a more accurate view would be that they would adapt, change, and possibly go the same way we did. And maybe they would go the same way. But they adapt to new information.
 
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?

No, No, and yes because their business license is a contract with the state that says they have to.

Any more assumptions? Looking pretty credible so far...not.
 
I'm, not sure that's true. They were practical men. The revised their first effort to strengthen federal power, not limit it more. They too, had they lived two hundred years, have likely revised many of their thoughts as they learned more. It's unlikely they would have stayed static.

They well understood the character of men, which haven't changed over the course of history. They knew corruption because it's the second oldest profession.
 
They well understood the character of men, which haven't changed over the course of history. They knew corruption because it's the second oldest profession.

That's just one aspect. Again, I believe they were realists.
 
we can always speculate and I suspect if someone told the founders that a future president would use the commerce clause to do the stuff FDR did, they would be calling for a rope and a high tree

I think they had concerns about the "general welfare clause" shortly after the ratification.
 
No, No, and yes because their business license is a contract with the state that says they have to.

Any more assumptions? Looking pretty credible so far...not.

Just so we're clear. You don't agree with the Hobby Lobby ruling, and you are in favor of forcing private individuals to participate in gay marriages against their religious beliefs, and contrary to the 1st Amendment.
 
Just so we're clear. You don't agree with the Hobby Lobby ruling, and you are in favor of forcing private individuals to participate in gay marriages against their religious beliefs, and contrary to the 1st Amendment.

I explained my position on the gay bakery example. Do not manufacture something else so you can look right.


And yes to HL. Need anything else to judge me incorrectly and attempt to shore up your grossly wrong generalizations?
 
I explained my position on the gay bakery example. Do not manufacture something else so you can look right.


And yes to HL. Need anything else to judge me incorrectly and attempt to shore up your grossly wrong generalizations?

Gee, regular champion of liberty you are. :roll:
 
Did you ever get around to reading that article I linked you to? The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not limited to defense against a tyrannical government. It is unconditional. A directed energy weapon would be covered.

But I'm not making that argument, that would be those folk, the 65% in the Rasmussen Poll. It would be nice to ring up James Madison for his clarification. But of course, Thomas Jefferson may have yet again a different take. As I've already stated though, I don't see why people reject the minimum take away from those two lines of protected rights of both individual and collective security.
 
Why should anyone not believe that one was one of the purposes for the Second Amendment? Quite a lot of evidence makes clear that it was, and I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court cited it.

I made no declaration contrary to that Poll.
 
But I'm not making that argument, that would be those folk, the 65% in the Rasmussen Poll. It would be nice to ring up James Madison for his clarification. But of course, Thomas Jefferson may have yet again a different take. As I've already stated though, I don't see why people reject the minimum take away from those two lines of protected rights of both individual and collective security.

Early Americans saw a wide range of applications for the use of/right to bear arms. No doubt the framers pulled from this line of thinking.

Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]

enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement;
deterring tyrannical government;[56]
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[57][58][59]
facilitating a natural right of self-defense.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
And I think your just bored. Terrorists won't be using fragmenting bullets!
Sure but the original statement you disagreed with was having US Air Marshals armed. US Air Marshals will be using fragmenting bullets.
 
Back
Top Bottom