• 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 .
thank you for revealing you previous attempts at any sort of actual intellectual exchange were just a sham and when push comes to shove you resort to this sort of childishness.

:lamo


I think this comment hit the Irony trifecta after the claim that "shall not be infringed" was intended to allow infringements
 
crooks passed the sullivan law to protect their ethnic based mobs from other ethinc groups

I love you talking about paranoia--I am not the one who is losing bodily function control over others being armed

The law was entered into and passed because of public demand. What the crooks did with it afterward means nothing to the point. It's the same point today as it was over 100 years ago: the public demands safer streets, so laws and regulations are passed to try and ensure that.

At the historical point of the 2nd Amendment, the new country had just beat an opppresive government, who for at least 700 years had been taking their weapons away from them. That has not nor can it happen in today's US.
 
The law was entered into and passed because of public demand. What the crooks did with it afterward means nothing to the point. It's the same point today as it was over 100 years ago: the public demands safer streets, so laws and regulations are passed to try and ensure that.

At the historical point of the 2nd Amendment, the new country had just beat an opppresive government, who for at least 700 years had been taking their weapons away from them. That has not nor can it happen in today's US.

Some statists are so gullible. The thugs created the demand and then pandered to the sheeple to disarm the public. Only MORONS think such laws make the streets safer.
 
Some statists are so gullible. The thugs created the demand and then pandered to the sheeple to disarm the public. Only MORONS think such laws make the streets safer.

(chuckle)

You came at me with what you thought was proof of an assertion about the truth behind gun laws..."ooooohhhh". Then I showed you how your own source betrayed you yet again! Let's not forget; since we're talking history, that in 1879 Tombstone Arizona, Wyatt Erp and the mayor created an ordinance that would not allow a gun to be carried in town, because of all the shoot outs. So, you see? It's always about the very same thing: safer streets.
 
(chuckle)

You came at me with what you thought was proof of an assertion about the truth behind gun laws..."ooooohhhh". Then I showed you how your own source betrayed you yet again! Let's not forget; since we're talking history, that in 1879 Tombstone Arizona, Wyatt Erp and the mayor created an ordinance that would not allow a gun to be carried in town, because of all the shoot outs. So, you see? It's always about the very same thing: safer streets.

Earp and his gang didn't want competition. But it wasn't a law like the Sullivan Act

gun control generally is passed to protect assholes and criminals.
 
Given your refusal to honestly answer most of the questions put to you, I really don't give a tinker's dam about your questions but its an easy answer.

Why are you powerless to answer a simple question? What that tells me is that I really got you treed on this one and you see no possible way out other than simply backing away hoping it will go away like a terminal cancer patient hopes its all a bad dream But you are awake Turtle - and its not going away.

Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
 
Last edited:
:lamo


I think this comment hit the Irony trifecta after the claim that "shall not be infringed" was intended to allow infringements

The Second does not mention INFRINGEMENTS. That is your own strawman of your own creation designed to pervert and twist what the Amendment really says in the effort to pursue a radical right wing agenda.

Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
 
Why are you impotent to answer a simple question?

Oh wait!!! Because it exposes the entire fraud you try to perpetrate here.

your post appears to signal confusion once again

My post clearly set forth my actions

and lets take a poll as to whose arguments are fraudulent

mine-shall not be infringed says NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, you cannot interfere with our RKBA

yours-Shall not be infringed means the founders intended all sorts of infringements up to but PERHAPS not including complete gun bans
 
The Second does not mention INFRINGEMENTS. That is your own strawman of your own creation designed to pervert and twist what the Amendment really says in the effort to pursue a radical right wing agenda.

Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?

None of the clauses in Sec 8 say anything about federal gun control powers. Yet you divine the existence of such a grant

your changing standards for interpreting various parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights appear to be a bit less than consistent
 
and lets take a poll as to whose arguments are fraudulent

Trying to change the question will not work Turtle.

In your poll why not limit it to far right gun supporters who have at least 1,000 supportive posts of your position in gun threads? That would be really neat.

Trying to invoke the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum only makes your argument look even weaker - and I wondered if that was even possible.

So lets go back and look t this again: Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
 
None of the clauses in Sec 8 say anything about federal gun control powers. Yet you divine the existence of such a grant

your changing standards for interpreting various parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights appear to be a bit less than consistent

Actually at least five of them do and you know it because we have been over this time and time and time again. But you really do not care about that--- you bringing up what has already been dealt with is only a sign of desperation to change the subject.

Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
 
Trying to change the question will not work Turtle.

In your poll why not limit it to far right gun supporters who have at least 1,000 supportive posts of your position in gun threads? That would be really neat.

Trying to invoke the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum only makes your argument look even weaker - and I wondered if that was even possible.

So lets go back and look t this again: Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?

why do you claim that shall not be infringed does not prevent infringements (like saying that shall not steal is not a prohibition against STEALING) but then pretend that there is language delegating gun control power to congress in clauses that don't even HINT at such a delegation

how does a Christian HAVE FAITH when faith exists only in the belief system of people?
 
why do you claim that shall not be infringed does not prevent infringements (like saying that shall not steal is not a prohibition against STEALING) but then pretend that there is language delegating gun control power to congress in clauses that don't even HINT at such a delegation

how does a Christian HAVE FAITH when faith exists only in the belief system of people?

Its not like anything. This isn't something else. This is this.

The Second does NOT mention the modernist concept of INFRINGEMENTS. But then you know that since you have been schooled on this at least 100 times in many different threads. But you really do not care about that--- you bringing up what has already been dealt with is only a sign of desperation to change the subject.

Now regarding your belief system about natural rights and pre-existing rights ...Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
 
Its not like anything. This isn't something else. This is this.

The Second does NOT mention the modernist concept of INFRINGEMENTS. But then you know that since you have been schooled on this at least 100 times in many different threads.

Now regarding your belief system about natural rights and pre-existing rights ...Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?

NO-what this is is a constantly changing set of standards that is laughably disingenuous. Unlike you, we pro rights posters don't have to engage in changing standards, making words up, etc as you do.

You claim to school people but all we have learned is that your posts are inconsistent and you change your standards when it is convenient for your position.

can you explain to me why Shall not be infringed DOES NOT PREVENT INFRINGEMENTS but the Commerce Clause clearly says retail firearms sales are a power of federal authority

Did you even read Cruikshank where the court clearly stated that powers of the state are not powers for congress?
 
NO-what this is is a constantly changing set of standards that is laughably disingenuous. Unlike you, we pro rights posters don't have to engage in changing standards, making words up, etc as you do.

You claim to school people but all we have learned is that your posts are inconsistent and you change your standards when it is convenient for your position.

can you explain to me why Shall not be infringed DOES NOT PREVENT INFRINGEMENTS but the Commerce Clause clearly says retail firearms sales are a power of federal authority

Did you even read Cruikshank where the court clearly stated that powers of the state are not powers for congress?

Not one thing you said there answers the question which is fundamental to your assertion about natural rights: But you really do not care about that--- you bringing up what has already been dealt with is only a sign of desperation to change the subject.

Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
 
Not one thing you said there answers the question which is fundamental to your assertion about natural rights: But you really do not care about that--- you bringing up what has already been dealt with is only a sign of desperation to change the subject.

Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?

why can't you apply the same standard of interpretation to the Sec 8 clauses that you apply to the 2 A?

the 2A incorporates a right the founders all agreed existed. so when we INTERPRET the 2A we look to what the founders thought. And it was right unfettered by a federal government of SPECIFIC AND LIMITED POWERS

see how that works. Its easy when you actually frame the question honestly.

so what the founders DESIRED TO RECOGNIZE is based on what they believed in

QED
 
why can't you apply the same standard of interpretation to the Sec 8 clauses that you apply to the 2 A?

I always have.



the 2A incorporates a right the founders all agreed existed
.

you left off the words .... existed in their own imaginations.


so when we INTERPRET the 2A we look to what the founders thought.

I am sure the naive and gullible put more emphasis on supposed beliefs than on actions. But perhaps you are familiar with the wisdom ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS?


so what the founders DESIRED TO RECOGNIZE is based on what they believed in

They were liars and hypocrites who did not even believe the crap they said they believed in. Why any gullible person would allow themselves to be played like that is a mystery.

Its easy when you actually frame the question honestly.

Your refusal to answer a simple question tells me that I have framed the question perfectly.

Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?

Think about it over night - its slumberland for me.
 
I always have.



.

you left off the words .... existed in their own imaginations.




I am sure the naive and gullible put more emphasis on supposed beliefs than on actions. But perhaps you are familiar with the wisdom ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS?




They were liars and hypocrites who did not even believe the crap they said they believed in. Why any gullible person would allow themselves to be played like that is a mystery.

Can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?

what nonsense-you read the 2A to say because infringements are not mentioned, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does not prevent them but where is gun control power listed in any of Sec 8

this denial is a classic example of IF YOU ARE GOING TO LIE YOU MIGHT AS WELL TELL A BIG ONE

and claiming you don't change your standards for interpreting the words of the founders is a BIG WHOPPER
 
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


No but the 14th amendment does.
 
Last edited:
what nonsense-you read the 2A to say because infringements are not mentioned, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does not prevent them but where is gun control power listed in any of Sec 8

The same places it was the first fifty times I pointed it out to you.
 
The same places it was the first fifty times I pointed it out to you.

I don't see any of the language there that you pretend exists
 
I don't see any of the language there that you pretend exists

I suspect you know the language as I presented it many times. We simply see it differently. And that is fine.
 
Back
Top Bottom