• 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!

would you vote to repeal the 2nd ammendment

repeal the 2a

  • yes

    Votes: 13 9.8%

  • no

    Votes: 120 90.2%
  • Total voters
    133
  • Poll closed .
BahamaBob said:
Quite simple, 1.25 million people are killed in auto crashes annually. In addition, there are twice as many guns as cars in the US. I also have had dozens of recalls on my cars. I have never had a recall on a gun.
Click to expand...

i've had several recalls on guns but i own a bunch

1) SIG MCX-got a new Bolt

2) SIG 320-Trigger issue-fixed

3) Walther PPK (US built) Safety issue -fixed

4) Ruger Mark IV safety issue-fixed

5) Smith and Wesson AR 15 22. Bolt issue-sent kit for testing-gun didn't need recall
 
ataraxia said:
I want THIS on my porch, just to shoo away burglars:

View attachment 67269263
Click to expand...

One of these would be cheaper, smaller and more effective :)

300px-US_M18a1_claymore_mine.jpg
 
TurtleDude said:
i've had several recalls on guns but i own a bunch

1) SIG MCX-got a new Bolt

2) SIG 320-Trigger issue-fixed

3) Walther PPK (US built) Safety issue -fixed

4) Ruger Mark IV safety issue-fixed

5) Smith and Wesson AR 15 22. Bolt issue-sent kit for testing-gun didn't need recall
Click to expand...

I forgot about my Smith Wesson M&P 15. It had a bolt issue too. They sent me a gauge and it checked to be in tolerance. Does that count as a recall?
 
BahamaBob said:
I forgot about my Smith Wesson M&P 15. It had a bolt issue too. They sent me a gauge and it checked to be in tolerance. Does that count as a recall?
Click to expand...

yeah because if your bolt failed, they'd send you a new one
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah because if your bolt failed, they'd send you a new one
Click to expand...

Still better than this.

Mercedes-Benz C-Class Recalls
There are currently 32 recalls for your vehicle.
 
BahamaBob said:
Still better than this.

Mercedes-Benz C-Class Recalls
There are currently 32 recalls for your vehicle.
Click to expand...

I had an airbag recall on my 350 Lexus. its like 9 years old
 
ataraxia said:
from a Constitutional perspective, nuclear arms are a type of arms. Why are you OK with its infrigement?
Click to expand...

CLAX1911 said:
Radioactive isotopes have to be behind shielding in order not to be deadly. A fire arm even a 50 Cal machine gun won't kill you with radiation. It doesn't have to be kept within containment.

There are limitations to liberty, it presents a clear danger to anybody within the critical radius of the isotope. Your right to seeing your fist ends at my nose. Your right to bear arms should end at people's right not to be exposed to radiation.
Click to expand...

I don't follow your logic. If I have a tactical nuke or a chemical or a biological weapon, it's not going to affect you unless I engage it. Just like a bullet in the chamber won't affect you unless I pull the trigger.
 
Slavister said:
I don't follow your logic. If I have a tactical nuke or a chemical or a biological weapon, it's not going to affect you unless I engage it.
Click to expand...
do tactical nukes not depend on a radioactive isotope? How are they engaged through what process does it create an isotope?

What do you mean by biological weapon?
Just like a bullet in the chamber won't affect you unless I pull the trigger.
Click to expand...
a frying pan won't affect you if I choose not to smack you in the face with it, car bumper of won't kill you if I choose not to run you over with it.

One thing a car bumper, frying pan or bullet will not do is cause you illness just by being in proximity to it. A radioactive isotope will.


Something also a car bumper a frying pan or a bullet won't do is they want inadvertently harm you.

A radioactive isotope can a catalyst and chain reaction can happen without you engaging it at all. A biological weapon assuming you're talking about anthrax can the harm you without you intending it or acting carelessly.
 
CLAX1911 said:
do tactical nukes not depend on a radioactive isotope? How are they engaged through what process does it create an isotope?

What do you mean by biological weapon?

a frying pan won't affect you if I choose not to smack you in the face with it, car bumper of won't kill you if I choose not to run you over with it.

One thing a car bumper, frying pan or bullet will not do is cause you illness just by being in proximity to it. A radioactive isotope will.


Something also a car bumper a frying pan or a bullet won't do is they want inadvertently harm you.

A radioactive isotope can a catalyst and chain reaction can happen without you engaging it at all. A biological weapon assuming you're talking about anthrax can the harm you without you intending it or acting carelessly.
Click to expand...

Being the in vicinity of a WMD will NOT make you ill or kill you because those radioactive isotopes and anthrax and chemical weapons are inside protective shields of one kind or another. So what? What makes you think this distinction is in any kind of shape or form relevant to the discussion? Did the Constitution say something about the "arms" being shielded that I missed? I don't believe the Amendment discusses how to operate the weapons.

And before you go too deep down this rabbit hole, I'll help you out by pointing out that some chemical and even biological weapons require MIXING of multiple agents right before using them. So, keeping separate ingredients is quite safe in fact for those cases.
 
Last edited:
Slavister said:
Being the in vicinity of a WMD will NOT make you ill or kill you because those radioactive isotopes and anthrax and chemical weapons are inside protective shields of one kind or another.
Click to expand...
I know wmd means weapon of mass destruction but that could be an airplane a couple gallons of gasoline or a few things you pick up at the hardware store.

As far as an isotope goes no you can't shield it, not one hundred percent. If you're careless thousands of people could die over thousands of years show me a gun that can do that



So what? What makes you think this distinction is in any kind of shape or form relevant to the discussion?
Click to expand...
because an AR15 doesn't emit radiation that can be deadly to all life for thousands of years. Simply being in the vicinity of one does not present a clear and present danger to your life


Did the Constitution say something about the "arms" being shielded that I missed? I don't believe the Amendment discusses how to operate the weapons.
Click to expand...
do your neighbors have the right not to be killed by radiation? Do people have the right to life is that something you would see in the Constitution?

The presence of a radioactive isotope necessarily places all life in imminent danger. A gun doesn't.

And before you go too deep down this rabbit hole, I'll help you out by pointing out that some chemical and even biological weapons require MIXING of multiple agents right before using them. So, keeping separate ingredients is quite safe in fact for those cases.
Click to expand...
If these chemicals were to mix what would be the result?
 
haymarket said:
Which speaks volumes about you. Thanks for the revelation.
Click to expand...

What's the matter, didn't they teach you that in high school debate class? :lol:
 
OpportunityCost said:
You seem confused about when the last gun control measure was passed. It wasn't in the 1800s. Gun control measures going out now are about restricting long arms, affecting hunters, competitive marksmen and enthusiasts, and people interested in the best in home protection. I am not going to ask why you hate those people, I know; they vote Republican. They vote Republican because every time the yahoos in DC try to solve a problem they look for the easy, lazy fix.

The long fix is mental health issues.
Click to expand...

So Why have those Republicans voted so many times against any mental health fixes too?
 
ataraxia said:
So Why have those Republicans voted so many times against any mental health fixes too?
Click to expand...

If you mean the instant removal of all rights by just a doctors signature, I can see where that would be tough to pass. I'm talking about more systematic evaluation and treatment.
 
American said:
What's the matter, didn't they teach you that in high school debate class? :lol:
Click to expand...

You never came up. But your dishonest tactics of outright lying about someones eases position despite that they clearly said otherwise certainly did.
 
SkyChief said:
Touché. :thumbs:

How about this:

Any Lawmaker who proposes infringements on this Right shall be publicly hanged on the steps of the Capitol building.

No ambiguity there!
Click to expand...

and that will stop the infringement crap, at least after the first three are hung.
 
OpportunityCost said:
If you mean the instant removal of all rights by just a doctors signature, I can see where that would be tough to pass. I'm talking about more systematic evaluation and treatment.
Click to expand...

So where are the bills with these new ideas these brave Republicans want to pass?
 
Slavister said:
I don't follow your logic. If I have a tactical nuke or a chemical or a biological weapon, it's not going to affect you unless I engage it. Just like a bullet in the chamber won't affect you unless I pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

It does when every crazy Tom, Dick, and Harry get one of these and pull the trigger.
 
CLAX1911 said:
do tactical nukes not depend on a radioactive isotope? How are they engaged through what process does it create an isotope?

What do you mean by biological weapon?

a frying pan won't affect you if I choose not to smack you in the face with it, car bumper of won't kill you if I choose not to run you over with it.

One thing a car bumper, frying pan or bullet will not do is cause you illness just by being in proximity to it. A radioactive isotope will.


Something also a car bumper a frying pan or a bullet won't do is they want inadvertently harm you.

A radioactive isotope can a catalyst and chain reaction can happen without you engaging it at all. A biological weapon assuming you're talking about anthrax can the harm you without you intending it or acting carelessly.
Click to expand...

If you have a society with lots of cars and no drivers' licensing or traffic laws, I promise you plenty can happen to you.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Are you implying guns aren't regulated at all? That's a non starter, as you well know.
Click to expand...

Why are you OK with that? Isn't that unconstitutional? Isn't that the first step on the slippery slope to Obama coming to your house and personally taking away your nail clippers?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Is there a constitutional right to drive or to bear arms?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the safety of those things? You are confusing two different topics: what is safe and prudent, and what is Constitutional.

With driving, you try to have laws and regulations that balance people's freedoms and choice, with issues of public safety. Why wouldn't that apply to guns as well.

Now if you want to say you don't care about safety, you just want to keep 18th century laws with 21st century weapons technology because that's what the Constitutional law, that's a very different topic than just public safety. You are saying your freedom trumps considerations of public safety. If that's where you want to go, make it clear.
 
ataraxia said:
What does that have to do with the safety of those things? You are confusing two different topics: what is safe and prudent, and what is Constitutional.

With driving, you try to have laws and regulations that balance people's freedoms and choice, with issues of public safety. Why wouldn't that apply to guns as well.

Now if you want to say you don't care about safety, you just want to keep 18th century laws with 21st century weapons technology because that's what the Constitutional law, that's a very different topic than just public safety. You are saying your freedom trumps considerations of public safety. If that's where you want to go, make it clear.
Click to expand...

I would point out that there already laws that cover carrying and possession of firearms.
 
Casper said:
I would point out that there already laws that cover carrying and possession of firearms.
Click to expand...

You are saying that like it's a good thing. Why? What happened to all those fears of the NRA's dreaded "slippery slope"?
 
ataraxia said:
So where are the bills with these new ideas these brave Republicans want to pass?
Click to expand...

I know you think you are scoring points with this partisan bull****, but these are my ideas.
 
ataraxia said:
What does that have to do with the safety of those things? You are confusing two different topics: what is safe and prudent, and what is Constitutional.

With driving, you try to have laws and regulations that balance people's freedoms and choice, with issues of public safety. Why wouldn't that apply to guns as well.

Now if you want to say you don't care about safety, you just want to keep 18th century laws with 21st century weapons technology because that's what the Constitutional law, that's a very different topic than just public safety. You are saying your freedom trumps considerations of public safety. If that's where you want to go, make it clear.
Click to expand...

Constitutional guarantees are the difference. There is no constitutional guarantee to drive. No, I don't want to keep 18th century laws in place. In what world does a shoulder stock, a bayonet lug, or a front grip handle become 21st century tech? Yet those are the criteria used to determine if something is "an assault weapon".

Legal use of firearms is not deadly to anyone but those committing crime on people that are carrying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom