• 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 .
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

Sadly for your argumentTurtle - the reality that proves you wrong is that they simply did just what you want to pretend that they did not do. I guess the responsibility of actually governing imbues one with a sense of responsibility with ones actions that the musings of a dilettante does not carry.
 
Sadly for your argumentTurtle - the reality that proves you wrong is that they simply did just what you want to pretend that they did not do. I guess the responsibility of actually governing imbues one with a sense of responsibility with ones actions that the musings of a dilettante does not carry.

now you are rewriting history

you speculate what the founders did because that is all you have. we have their speeches and their letters and not a single document supports the swill you spew. so you have to pretend that men who believed in natural rights would pen amendments that would not recognize such rights

or that Shall not be infringed was INTENDED to allow infringements

or that civilian cops are not civilians

everything you post on this subject is orwellian and nonsensical
 
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?

Why is does that quote demonstrate how 'far the extreme right the gun lobby crowd has gotten since Reagan"? In a country like America where persona liberty and free will are held paramount, people do not need to justify the property, pastimes, and experiences they desire. RR was wrong when he said that Americans dont need AKs for hunting (implied) or for self-defense...he explicitly said 'need.' The AK is very handy for home defense. WHo is RR or anyone else to tell a person what he or she needs to keep their home safe? And people do indeed hunt with them...it's a choice. Who is RR or anyone else to tell an American they cannot?

And then all my examples backed that up. Do you need them reiterated?
 
Why is does that quote demonstrate how 'far the extreme right the gun lobby crowd has gotten since Reagan"?

Because RR was the most conservative US President in the last 80 years and he supported gun control and conservatives supported him. But since he left the right wing has taken over the NRA and the party has shifter to the far right on this issue.
 
Because RR was the most conservative US President in the last 80 years and he supported gun control and conservatives supported him. But since he left the right wing has taken over the NRA and the party has shifter to the far right on this issue.

I guess you just missed all the posts explaining this

Reagan was less anti gun than Carter. Reagan was a better choice for conservatives than Carter.
the NRA had to become "RW" because harassment of gun owners is mainly a left wing pathology
 
Because RR was the most conservative US President in the last 80 years and he supported gun control and conservatives supported him. But since he left the right wing has taken over the NRA and the party has shifter to the far right on this issue.

Thank you. Unfortunately, his comment isnt valid (as I've said and you've objected to) because of the personal freedom reasons I mentioned.

And because I am a liberal Democrat.
 
I guess you just missed all the posts explaining this

Reagan was less anti gun than Carter. Reagan was a better choice for conservatives than Carter.
the NRA had to become "RW" because harassment of gun owners is mainly a left wing pathology

Thank you for admitting the NRA became right wing.
 
Thank you. Unfortunately, his comment isnt valid (as I've said and you've objected to) because of the personal freedom reasons I mentioned.

And because I am a liberal Democrat.

Where do you get off pretending that you have some sort of authority to declare the personal opinion of a person as not VALID?
 
Thank you for admitting the NRA became right wing.

anyone who supports the constitution apparently is right wing based on your perspective
 
Where do you get off pretending that you have some sort of authority to declare the personal opinion of a person as not VALID?

she is right. Reagan's comments are not valid because his opinion was based on ignorance and a complete misunderstanding of constitutional rights
 
Where do you get off pretending that you have some sort of authority to declare the personal opinion of a person as not VALID?

Because I backed it up with similar, relevant examples where his opinion would not apply.

So it is selective, not applicable across similar personal freedoms, regarding American's rights in America.
 
anyone who supports the constitution apparently is right wing based on your perspective

Actually it was your perspective in admitting that the NRA is right wing. From your own 732

the NRA had to become "RW" because harassment of gun owners is mainly a left wing pathology
 
Because I backed it up with similar, relevant examples where his opinion would not apply.

So it is selective, not applicable across similar personal freedoms, regarding American's rights in America.

What does that mean.... "his opinion would not apply"? Apply to what exactly? That really makes no sense at all.
 
What does that mean.... "his opinion would not apply"? Apply to what exactly? That really makes no sense at all.

Did you, or did you not, read the examples that I posted?
 
Actually it was your perspective in admitting that the NRA is right wing. From your own 732

of course they are right wing. gun banning is mainly left wing.
 
Amazing that NRA leadership doesn't pay attention to the 74% of their members who supported Toomey/Manchin--
both rated straight A by the NRA.

You could call these NRA member lemmings one of the latest "silent majorities" .

Thank you for admitting the NRA became right wing.
 
Amazing that NRA leadership doesn't pay attention to the 74% of their members who supported Toomey/Manchin--
both rated straight A by the NRA.

You could call these NRA member lemmings one of the latest "silent majorities" .

many NRA members don't understand what the real purpose is behind the moronic pandering for UBCGs
 
Did you, or did you not, read the examples that I posted?

YOu can post a billion more. Go for it. Its a free country. How does any of that make the personal opinion of anybody as INVALID?
 
YOu can post a billion more. Go for it. Its a free country. How does any of that make the personal opinion of anybody as INVALID?

that is incredibly and patently silly

an opinion based on ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty is invalid. Its like saying "its my opinion that Jews sunk the Titanic because Iceberg, Goldberg and Greenberg are all Jewish names

yes that opinion is invalid because its based on an idiotic assumption and blatant stupidity

Reagan claiming you don't NEED something is ignorant of constitutional rights and saying an AK-47 is not needed for home defense is an opinion based on a woeful lack of intelligence on the subject

what is also invalid is your post using this red herring of Reagan to deflect from the fact that all major schemes against our 2A rights are hatched and nurtured by the Democrat party
 
Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,




Bill of Rights

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
There's no need for certain "guards" of all gun threads to respond to every post I make since it isn't to you.
Besides, I don't read them anyway and encounter anger from both sides of the aisle on guns--meaning Sir Nimby is spot on .
 
that is incredibly and patently silly

an opinion based on ignorance, stupidity or dishonesty is invalid. Its like saying "its my opinion that Jews sunk the Titanic because Iceberg, Goldberg and Greenberg are all Jewish names

yes that opinion is invalid because its based on an idiotic assumption and blatant stupidity

Reagan claiming you don't NEED something is ignorant of constitutional rights and saying an AK-47 is not needed for home defense is an opinion based on a woeful lack of intelligence on the subject

what is also invalid is your post using this red herring of Reagan to deflect from the fact that all major schemes against our 2A rights are hatched and nurtured by the Democrat party

Actually its not "like" anything. It is the mans personal opinion about firearms. You can call him ignorant or stupid or dishonest. It matters not. Its still his opinion and what you seem to hate about it is that it proves you are dead wrong when you constantly whine about Democrats and refuse to accept that Republicans also have supported gun control measures.
 
There's no need for certain "guards" of all gun threads to respond to every post I make since it isn't to you.
Besides, I don't read them anyway and encounter anger from both sides of the aisle on guns--meaning Sir Nimby is spot on .

:funny
 
Back
Top Bottom