• 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 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


Original poster still hasn't shown up since his join date.

I guess he wasn't interested in the results...
 
Original poster still hasn't shown up since his join date.

I guess he wasn't interested in the results...

He posted the same poll on another board using another name but it was the same poster.

and I don't recall him sticking around there either.
 
I wonder how many schools in Scotland assign a study on the U.S. Second Amendment? :)
 
I want you to cite the specific language that actually mentions a federal gun control power. We know that Liberals pretend and divine such a power but I want to see the plain language

and again this is disingenuous given how you construe the 2A and then start engaging in a completely different set of standards for Sec 8. SORRY, there is no such power given and you know that

the Constitution has NOT CHANGED since the previous dozens of times I gave you the language in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.

An you know that.
 
No they didn't, they merely said a well regulated militia was necessary, they never said arms could only be kept in that context. In fact, they said just the opposite.


Why do you keep tap dancing around my other question? Afraid it may bolster my point?

What other question is it that you want to ask of me?

You really have no point to bolster.
 
Can you support the quote you posted and why you posted it or are you in the habit of posting things you do not understand?

Can I support what quote I posted? the Reagan quote? I think it perfectly summarizes the feelings of large numbers of Americans on firearms and that is why I presented it. I also like to use it to show just how far to the extreme right the gun lobby crowd has gotten since Reagan - the conservative icon and most conservative president since 1932.

What else do you need to know that has not already been said?
 
except MIlitary service is not a natural right that would be part of the Bill of rights

major fail

Nor is anything else because natural right do not exist.

Worse than a major fail.
 
What other question is it that you want to ask of me?

You really have no point to bolster.

Go back and look, you skipped over it three times. Purely by accident, I'm sure. :roll:
 
the Constitution has NOT CHANGED since the previous dozens of times I gave you the language in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.

An you know that.

More evasive nonsense. We have asked you constantly to show the actual language (and since it MENTIONS NOTHING about federal gun control) show us how language devoid of any mention of gun control actually means federal gun control.

What I know is that your posts constantly avoid answering straight questions and demand others adopt extreme and untenable definitions
 
Nor is anything else because natural right do not exist.

Worse than a major fail.

More silliness. YOu know damn well that matters not. what counts is that the FOUNDERS believed in said rights and INTENDED to use the BILL OF RIGHTS to recognize and Guarantee such rights. SO tell us Haymarket, why do you constantly engage in evasion by arguing over the existence of a belief? Its dilatory, evasive and a disingenuous argument
 
More evasive nonsense. We have asked you constantly to show the actual language (and since it MENTIONS NOTHING about federal gun control) show us how language devoid of any mention of gun control actually means federal gun control.

What I know is that your posts constantly avoid answering straight questions and demand others adopt extreme and untenable definitions

Article I Section 8. that is a direct answer and there is nothing evasive about it.
 
More silliness. YOu know damn well that matters not. what counts is that the FOUNDERS believed in said rights and INTENDED to use the BILL OF RIGHTS to recognize and Guarantee such rights. SO tell us Haymarket, why do you constantly engage in evasion by arguing over the existence of a belief? Its dilatory, evasive and a disingenuous argument

you cannot recognize something which does not exist in reality. Why do I say so? As a life long educator I try to inform and illuminate into the ignorance and darkness.
 
you cannot recognize something which does not exist in reality. Why do I say so? As a life long educator I try to inform and illuminate into the ignorance and darkness.

YOur posts are akin to squid ink on this board-a diversion used to escape being destroyed. YOur argument is specious-it matters not if a natural right EXISTS-what matters is that the founders ALL BELIEVED IN NATURAL RIGHTS and the Bill of rights was designed to recognize them

so stop this silly diversion since it has no relevance to the issue

once again, the founders WHO BELIEVED IN NATURAL RIGHTS, would not issue a Bill of Rights that did not recognize said Natural Rights

and that is something you cannot refute which is why your posts continue to divert with this nonsense over whether NRs exist
 
What other question is that you want to ask of me?

I am not going to play games, if you want to answer the question, go back and look it up. I asked it three times, you could not have missed it.
 
Article I Section 8. that is a direct answer and there is nothing evasive about it.

More evasive crap. cite the specific language that mentions the power to regulate privately owned firearms

it DOES NOT EXIST so we are left with your misguided and dishonest interpretations of the language

you have constantly failed to explain what language actually is code for federal gun control
 
YOur posts are akin to squid ink on this board-a diversion used to escape being destroyed.

Being destroyed?!?!?!?!? What ever do you mean?

the founders WHO BELIEVED IN NATURAL RIGHTS, would not issue a Bill of Rights that did not recognize said Natural Rights

You cannot recognize something which does not exist in reality.

and that is something you cannot refute which is why your posts continue to divert with this nonsense over whether NRs exist

Simple REALITY refutes you Turtle... simple everyday reality proves you are wrong.
 
More evasive crap. cite the specific language that mentions the power to regulate privately owned firearms

it DOES NOT EXIST so we are left with your misguided and dishonest interpretations of the language

you have constantly failed to explain what language actually is code for federal gun control

What is there about the five specific clauses I have provided for you many times in the past that causes you to not understand?
 
I am not going to play games, if you want to answer the question, go back and look it up. I asked it three times, you could not have missed it.

thats fine with me. have a nice evening.
 
YOur posts are akin to squid ink on this board-

I think this one has merit: read it and weigh in

Originally Posted by TurtleDude
the Supreme court had made references to the right being individual. that is the point


the point is that Scalia was led by ideology and NOT by history or the Constitution or anything else. Let me quote from Scalia's majority decision in Heller

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).

You see Turtle, not only have I read Heller, but I went the extra step and looked up the citations Scalia uses to explain his thinking. I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:

The term “bear arms” is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. To “bear arms against” means “to be engaged in hostilities with.” The word “arms” itself has an overwhelmingly military meaning, referring to weapons of offense or armor of defense. In every instance we have found where the term “bear arms” (or “bearing arms” or “bear arms against”) is employed, without any additional modifying language attached, the term unquestionably is used in its idiomatic military sense. It is only where additional language is tacked on, either to bend the idiom by specifying a particular type of fighting or to break the idiom by adding incompatible language, that the meaning of “bear arms” deviates. In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.


So please tell us how Scalia came to the opposite decision from the source he lists as an important one in helping to formulate his understanding and interpretation of the Amendment?
 
Being destroyed?!?!?!?!? What ever do you mean?



You cannot recognize something which does not exist in reality.



Simple REALITY refutes you Turtle... simple everyday reality proves you are wrong.

more silliness

lets suppose the College of Cardinals are tasked with writing a new constitution for the Vatican and they say in that constitution that the papal state recognizes God's law. and 200 years later, some marxists claim that since God does not exist, the cardinals' law make no sense. Same thing.

Our founders believed in natural law. Men who believed in natural law would not do certain things and they would do other things

which apparently is why so much diversion is spent claiming natural rights do not exist

that has no relevance

what is relevant is that men who believed in NATURAL RIGHTS would issue amendments designed to recognize those rights

and that explains why so much time is spent trying to divert from that fact
 
more silliness

lets suppose the College of Cardinals are tasked with writing a new constitution for the Vatican and they say in that constitution that the papal state recognizes God's law. and 200 years later, some marxists claim that since God does not exist, the cardinals' law make no sense. Same thing.

Our founders believed in natural law. Men who believed in natural law would not do certain things and they would do other things

which apparently is why so much diversion is spent claiming natural rights do not exist

that has no relevance

what is relevant is that men who believed in NATURAL RIGHTS would issue amendments designed to recognize those rights

and that explains why so much time is spent trying to divert from that fact

No self adopted belief because you want to believe it can make something that does not exist suddenly exist in reality. That is a fact.
 
No self adopted belief because you want to believe it can make something that does not exist suddenly exist in reality. That is a fact.

what is a fact is that you continually and deliberately miss the point because you don't like what that point is. whether natural rights exist or not is irrelevant and you KNOW that. people who believe in natural rights would not craft a document recognizing them that would allow all the intrusions you claim they intended

again (for the people who are reading this)

A catholic manuscript refers to "the savior".

I claim that means Jesus because Catholics believed that Jesus was the savior

you argue that there is no God

irrelevant
 
Back
Top Bottom