• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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!

The Second Amendment should be revoked and replaced with a heavy focus on Gun Control

Would you repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment

  • Yes, guns are too dangerous to greater good and should be banned

    Votes: 3 2.9%

  • Yes, but allow only single shot hunting rifles(bolt action) and shotguns for hunting

    Votes: 5 4.9%

  • No, but add stricter limits ; smart guns, number of guns owned limited, ammo limits

    Votes: 14 13.7%

  • Leave the 2nd Amendment as is.

    Votes: 80 78.4%
  • Total voters
    102
Aristaeus said:
Nice speech. However, if you think that your guns are the only thing standing in the way of a tyrannical government, than you are deluded. It also ignores all the free, peaceful countries that don't have an armed citizenry.
Click to expand...

What other government is as much of a war profiteer as the US? I think it would be ignorant to compare the chance of tyranny of a war profiteering government to a government that doesn't war profiteer.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nonsense. Arguing that a forcibly unarmed citizenry, living under an armed government, is free is pure BS of the highest order.
Click to expand...

So the only definition of freedom in your opinion is whether you can own a gun??
 
Aristaeus said:
So the only definition of freedom in your opinion is whether you can own a gun??
Click to expand...

No...owning a gun is the definition of keeping your freedom.
 
Aristaeus said:
So the only definition of freedom in your opinion is whether you can own a gun??
Click to expand...

I did not even come close to saying that. Is your definition of freedom that you can do whatever the government allows?
 
We can have reasonable regulations without changing the 2nd Amendment.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I would support a rewriting of the amendment. To decide once and for all that any and all gun bans are unconstitutional but that very strict universal back ground checks, a universal gun registry, mandated gun safety courses etc are allowed for and should be put in place.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with any of those things other than the gun registry.
 
Pozessed said:
Federal law supersedes state law. If feds revoke the second, and Pennsylvania keeps the right to bear arms, I predict the feds would raid arms dealers. Same as the feds raided marijuana dispensaries after marijuana was legalized in various states. Gotta love ambiguous sovereignty.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the 2nd Amendment isn't a law, it is a basis of law, so it is unclear how the Supremacy Clause would apply. State Constitutions can establish additional rights, but they can not take away any federal rights. It is unclear to me whether the opposite is true.

My point still stands.
 
Aristaeus said:
Since an armed citizenry is no longer necessary to maintain a free state, there is an argument for it's repeal.
Click to expand...

So, somehow or other, you’ve managed to convince yourself that abridging a fundamental right to self defense makes people more free? How, exactly, does that work?
 
roughdraft274 said:
I would support a rewriting of the amendment. To decide once and for all that any and all gun bans are unconstitutional but that very strict universal back ground checks, a universal gun registry, mandated gun safety courses etc are allowed for and should be put in place.
Click to expand...

Free mandatory gun safety courses no more than 4 hours long.

A gun registry is irrelevant if gun bans are specifically prohibited by The Constitution. Gun ban are already specifically prohibited by The Constitution, but an amendment clarifying that is a good idea.

We already have background checks.
 
Polar Bum said:
No...owning a gun is the definition of keeping your freedom.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Russians or Yemenis. I think I have more freedom in the gun-restricting UK than I would in those gun-allowing countries.
 
apdst said:
Free mandatory gun safety courses no more than 4 hours long.

A gun registry is irrelevant if gun bans are specifically prohibited by The Constitution. Gun ban are already specifically prohibited by The Constitution, but an amendment clarifying that is a good idea.

We already have background checks.
Click to expand...

It's like your entire job around here is to get stuff wrong.

We have background checks. Not universal.

Gun registry isn't irrelevant if gun bans are prohibited. That's stupid.
 
roughdraft274 said:
It's like your entire job around here is to get stuff wrong.

We have background checks. Not universal.

Gun registry isn't irrelevant if gun bans are prohibited. That's stupid.
Click to expand...

What's a "universal" background check? Do you have an actual definition? Or, is it just another Liberal catch-phrase that sounds cool?

If gun bans are prohibited, there's no need for the government to know what guns I own.
 
apdst said:
What's a "universal" background check? Do you have an actual definition? Or, is it just another Liberal catch-phrase that sounds cool?

If gun bans are prohibited, there's no need for the government to know what guns I own.
Click to expand...

A back ground check that applies to all transfers/sales period. If I sell you a gun tomorrow there is no background check required. If you're a felon I can still sell you the gun 100% legally (on my part) as long as I don't know you're a felon.

There's plenty of need. That's a stupid statement. A registry allows us to track down guns. If you're gun ends up at a crime scene I know where to go for questioning etc.
 
The impression people from outside the United States are getting is that Americans live in fear. In 1938, my father applied for a permit to purchase a handgun. The police officer asked why he wanted a pistol. My father said it was for self defence. The Constable replied, "Thats why I'm here." End of application.
Why are so many of you afraid of your government? You elected them. If they are so terrifying, elect someone else.
Disclaimer: I own a rifle. I bought it in case we are invaded by the United States. I was young and unrealistic at the time. (LBJ was President at the time.) I now realize that a civilian with a gun against the U.S. army is dead. I also know that an American veteran with a gun against the U.S. army is also dead. I am disposing of my rifle.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
I don't follow, please explain your argument.
Click to expand...

Guns can no longer guarantee a free state against the above, and are no longer necessary for a free state.

What will prevent tyranny in the US is not guns but the rule of law, and checks and balances.
 
Renae said:
And free speech was limited to unaided to unaided speaking (no microphones, TV's, radio...) and printed word on paper, not televised, computer or otherwise.

So let's limit speech laws to just paper and unaided speech.
Click to expand...

Or at least admit that money isn't speech.

Do we need to say that the Second is absolute? The right to keep and bear any arms can not be infringed in any way whatsoever? That's what the amendment says.
 
Renae said:
In light of the madness in Las Vegas, the terrible loss of life and limb, would you support replacing the 2nd Amendment if you were part of a Constitutional Convention?
Click to expand...

I'd strengthen it and say that the federal government has no jurisdiction whatsoever in the area when it comes to firearms--and note that any firearm a civilian police agency can use, private citizens can freely own.
 
queenmandy85 said:
The impression people from outside the United States are getting is that Americans live in fear. In 1938, my father applied for a permit to purchase a handgun. The police officer asked why he wanted a pistol. My father said it was for self defence. The Constable replied, "Thats why I'm here." End of application.
Why are so many of you afraid of your government? You elected them. If they are so terrifying, elect someone else.
Disclaimer: I own a rifle. I bought it in case we are invaded by the United States. I was young and unrealistic at the time. (LBJ was President at the time.) I now realize that a civilian with a gun against the U.S. army is dead. I also know that an American veteran with a gun against the U.S. army is also dead. I am disposing of my rifle.
Click to expand...

how would 80 million riflemen do against an armed force that is limited in what major weapons it could use
 
TurtleDude said:
I'd strengthen it and say that the federal government has no jurisdiction whatsoever in the area when it comes to firearms--and note that any firearm a civilian police agency can use, private citizens can freely own.
Click to expand...

If you limit the arms that the people can keep and bear to what the civilian police agency can use, that's an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
 
LesGovt said:
There always remains a necessity for the people to be able to protect itself from the government.
Click to expand...

If you and the local constabulary tangle, who comes out on top? Can you outgun your local police/sheriff’s department?
 
Renae said:
In light of the madness in Las Vegas, the terrible loss of life and limb, would you support replacing the 2nd Amendment if you were part of a Constitutional Convention?
Click to expand...

Dont agree with your Yes answers, but I certainly think the 2nd amendment needs to be brought up to date to

-legally allow congress to regulate the ownership of some firearms (think actual machine guns, grenade launchers etc, not ar-15)
-keep them out of the hands of dangerous individuals
-prevent local govts from infringing on gun ownership

Essentially to legalize some of what they are already doing illegally. If anything we need LESS gun laws, they just need to be constitutional and uniform.
 
Renae said:
In light of the madness in Las Vegas, the terrible loss of life and limb, would you support replacing the 2nd Amendment if you were part of a Constitutional Convention?
Click to expand...

I didn't vote in the poll because this is what I would favor:


We need people control, not gun control. I don't give a damn how many people are incarcerated. AFTER the left agrees to people control and we still have a problem, I would be perfectly fine with talking about gun control. What pisses me off is the left ignoring the real problem and not even wanting to discuss it and thinking that gun control will solve the problem of gun violence. In other words, I am perfectly fine with gun control legislation and even talking about amending the second amendment as long as the left is willing to work on the real problem first. It is my opinion that if we do people control then gun control will not be necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom