• 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!

If the 2nd Amendment goes away....

Do guns become illegal to own if the 2nd is abolished?

  • Total voters
    43
eohrnberger said:
Its been identified to you any number of times.
I'm going to stop feeding your trolling, once again.
Have a nice life.
Click to expand...

Then just pick one. Everyone can see you running. Lol
 
NonoBadDog said:
Your time in service (doubtful) doesn't give you any more right to have an opinion than anyone else that is a citizen of this country, Thank G-d.
Click to expand...

especially in areas his opinions are rather deficient in when it comes to rational arguments or facts.
 
1-The 2nd isnt going away. But...

If you want an example of what happens when people lose their gun rights, look no further than the UK. in 1996 following a tragic incident, the loyal subjects in the UK dropped to their knees and sacrificed...willingly...their gun rights. Less than 2 short decades later, the subjects in the UK are literally being arrested and thrown in prison for making joking comments that others find 'offensive'. Free speech in the UK is nonexistent. Now comes a ban on sharp knives with points.
 
Master PO said:
since the USSC in rulings has recognized the right to bear arms, how can a law make them illegal?

is it the court going to make a reverse and say, "we are sorry but we are not going to un-reconized the right to bear a now".

thats like saying i recognize you as a human being and then later changing your mind and saying you are not human.
Click to expand...

Without going back to read the actual ruling, I believe it stated the 2nd amendment protected a person's right to keep and bear arms independent of the militia. Therefore if the 2nd amendment went away, the ruling would be useless.
 
TurtleDude said:
especially in areas his opinions are rather deficient in when it comes to rational arguments or facts.
Click to expand...

I got in a discussion with him where he claimed the National Guard wasn't military. I pointed out that the flight crew in the Seal Team Six mission that was shot down was National Guard who had done hundreds of air assault missions. He brushed their sacrifice as a non existent inconvenience. That flight crew and helicopter was my old unit. I lost some good friends in that incident. People that I had worked with for more than 15 years. It happened shortly after I retired. The damage ran deep. At that point I stopped believing that he has any military experience. If he does he doesn't deserve the recognition.

Extortion 17, Seal Team Six and What Really Happened on the Deadliest Day in the History of Naval Special Warfare and the U.S. War in Afghanistan
 
Nap said:
If the 2nd is repealed then they could make laws against owning firearms as that protection would have been removed. I think it is doubtful we will see it in our lifetimes but as the populace continues to move towards the belief that more government can solve everything then it will eventually happen.
Click to expand...

the court has already recognized the RIGHT to bear arms, how can a law ban arms stand if the court has already ruled its a right.

the 2nd amendment is not granting you anything, its only stating that a right existed before the constitution was ever written, and the court recognizes that as a fact.
 
Tigerace117 said:
False, actually. Under the Enlightenment principles of the Constitution, you get one attempt at revolution, not a permenant excuse to create chaos
Click to expand...

when a people decide to have a revolution, they will have one. law does not give them permission

the DOI are the founding principles of this nation.
 
Last edited:
Phoenix said:
Without going back to read the actual ruling, I believe it stated the 2nd amendment protected a person's right to keep and bear arms independent of the militia. Therefore if the 2nd amendment went away, the ruling would be useless.
Click to expand...

the 2nd is a two part amendment, 1. first part ,the militia will not be subject to laws of the federal government, but only its organizing in ranks, structure, and supply. 2. the right of the people to bear arms

that federal law is not exercised by the federal government but the states government on matters of the militia.

the u.s. federal government in the time of founders cannot use the militia of states unless if gets the states permission FIRST.

THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD NOT USE THE MILITIA for STATES FOR REBELLION UNTIL 1861 AND IT COULD NOT USE THEM FOR INSURRECTION UNTIL 1869




the ruling is a recognizing of a right that it exist in the people.

how do you un- recognize something?
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
when a people decide to have a revolution, they will have one. law does not give them permission

the DOI are the founding principles of this nation.
Click to expand...

If one wishes to invoke the constitution to justify their “revolution” one must actually abide by the principles of it. The Constitution is not a permanen blank check to rampage whenever you feel like it.

There is no “right” to continually kill “in the name of the revolution”. The founders were actively trying to prevent something like that from happening.

And last I checked the Declaration of Independence doesn’t give you a blank check either.
 
Master PO said:
the court has already recognized the RIGHT to bear arms, how can a law ban arms stand if the court has already ruled its a right.

the 2nd amendment is not granting you anything, its only stating that a right existed before the constitution was ever written, and the court recognizes that as a fact.
Click to expand...

Lol no. The “right” to bear arms never existed in the vast majority of the world before it was codified in the Constitution.
 
Tigerace117 said:
If one wishes to invoke the constitution to justify their “revolution” one must actually abide by the principles of it. The Constitution is not a permanen blank check to rampage whenever you feel like it.

There is no “right” to continually kill “in the name of the revolution”. The founders were actively trying to prevent something like that from happening.

And last I checked the Declaration of Independence doesn’t give you a blank check either.
Click to expand...

law does give permission for revolution, if revolution takes place it is because the time is right, that is my meaning
 
Tigerace117 said:
Lol no. The “right” to bear arms never existed in the vast majority of the world before it was codified in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

the right to bear arms existed before the constitution. the constitution only recognizes the right it does not grant it .

rights are unwritten law.

the bill of rights are restrictions on federal power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom