• 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 .
ataraxia said:
No, it's always been about comparing the US to other developed nations with a government capable of some law enforcement. If you want to compare to all, the idea that more guns means more safety gets completely blown out of the water. You think it's safe to live here? Because there are no enforceable restrictions and just about everyone has guns:

View attachment 67269384





Like I said and cited in the reference, comparing the US to other developed nations: if you include firearms, our homicide rate is 10x higher. If you include all-cause homicide rate, we are only 7x higher.







So I am not sure what you are arguing about. You may not be understanding my position accurately. I am not out to ban all firearms. But I find the argument that any attempt at regulations or new laws regarding firearms as a "slippery slope" to complete gun bans ridiculous and alarming.
Click to expand...
Then you haven't been listening to Democrat legislators, more than a few of them have stated that's their goal.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Regarding additional regulations, multiple laws have been declared unconstitutional and nothing currently proposed is going to prevent mass shootings as things stand. Legislators need to quit scapegoating weapons and look at who is using them and why.
 
Last edited:
OpportunityCost said:
Then you haven't been listening to Democrat legislators, more than a few of them have stated that's their goal.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Regarding additional regulations, multiple laws have been declared unconstitutional and nothing currently proposed is going to prevent mass shootings as things stand. Legislators need to quit scapegoating weapons and look at who is using them and why.
Click to expand...

Why can’t we do both? How are you confident it’s not about the volume and scope of the guns? It’s like saying we should regulate traffic by only paying attention to speed limits, but never any traffic lights.

With this line of thinking, there should then be no problem with allowing the proliferation of nuclear weapons all over the world. Because, after all, nukes don’t kill people, people kill people. We can then focus on addressing the mental health issues of Kim Jung Un and the Iranian Ayatollahs, right?
 
ataraxia said:
Why can’t we do both? How are you confident it’s not about the volume and scope of the guns? It’s like saying we should regulate traffic by only paying attention to speed limits, but never any traffic lights.

With this line of thinking, there should then be no problem with allowing the proliferation of nuclear weapons all over the world. Because, after all, nukes don’t kill people, people kill people. We can then focus on addressing the mental health issues of Kim Jung Un and the Iranian Ayatollahs, right?
Click to expand...

Would you stop it with the utterly ridiculous analogy. Its not similar---at all.

Now you are veering into nukes for some reason I can't even fathom.

We had the same scope of firearms before, we didn't have mass shootings. Something has changed and its not the guns, we need to examine what has changed in our society. There is nothing we can do within the scope of 2nd amendment rights that will prevent the current mass shootings. Passing more gun regulation is now going to be more restrictive to our citizens than to criminals.

The solution is to change the 2nd amendment. Nothing else will do what you want it to, what many Democrats say they want to happen.

BTW, the majority of gun violence occurs from handguns, the vast majority.

Do me a favor and quit trying to kitchen sink it, focus on the topic, not nukes, not car safety.
 
Violence is up. It has nothing to do with guns they are just a tool. To curb gun violence you need to root out the cause of the violence not the tools.

Most gun violence is from two sources. Suicide and gang activity. These two areas cover well over 80% of all gun violence. First of all, to many gun violence in these two areas is not a negative occurrence. They would rather have someone set on suicide offing themselves with a gun than crashing their car into innocents. Gang bangers offing one another is no loss to society either.

However, Mother Theresa is correct. Their is no respect for life anymore. In a society where hundreds of thousands of women kill their own unborn babies while people applaud, why would you expect respect for any life.
 
This is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...

Enforce the law!
 
OpportunityCost said:
Would you stop it with the utterly ridiculous analogy. Its not similar---at all.

Now you are veering into nukes for some reason I can't even fathom.

We had the same scope of firearms before, we didn't have mass shootings. Something has changed and its not the guns, we need to examine what has changed in our society. There is nothing we can do within the scope of 2nd amendment rights that will prevent the current mass shootings. Passing more gun regulation is now going to be more restrictive to our citizens than to criminals.

The solution is to change the 2nd amendment. Nothing else will do what you want it to, what many Democrats say they want to happen.

BTW, the majority of gun violence occurs from handguns, the vast majority.

Do me a favor and quit trying to kitchen sink it, focus on the topic, not nukes, not car safety.
Click to expand...

There are lots of causes of violence in our society- some of it psychological, some of it sociological. Does banning guns make a society safer or less safe? Is there a level of regulation that’s optimal to balance freedom with public safety considerations?

These are questions which no one really knows for sure and that a good epidemiologist can study. Their job is all about teasing out causes, effects, and correlations. But the NRA lobbied to ban funding in this area. And even since the ban was lifted, Congress has refused to find any further research to help shed light on this matter. So now we are left with just thoughts and prayers, and NRA propaganda and fear mongering.

Until we have more solid research in this area, we can all sit here and make all sorts of claims until we are blue in the face. It’s just all personal opinion. More research can clear this log jam. But unfortunately, we have chosen to keep the blindfold on. Is it because we were afraid to look?
 
danielpalos said:
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
Click to expand...

Who said that freedom and security should always go together? Aren’t there times when two equally legitimate and desirable goals or ends clash irreconcilably and there have to be difficult judgments on compromise and trade-offs between them?
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Who said that freedom and security should always go together? Aren’t there times when two equally legitimate and desirable goals or ends clash irreconcilably and there have to be difficult judgments on compromise and trade-offs between them?
Click to expand...

Not true. Franklin said those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.
 
ataraxia said:
Who said that freedom and security should always go together? Aren’t there times when two equally legitimate and desirable goals or ends clash irreconcilably and there have to be difficult judgments on compromise and trade-offs between them?
Click to expand...

Our supreme law of the land is in no manner ambiguous.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
 
The bill of rights is not a list of laws.
It’s a list of rights everyone has that no law can be made to infringe upon.

The Supreme Court has done a terrible job of insuring that; see immigration checkpoints 100 miles inland from the border.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
danielpalos said:
Our supreme law of the land is in no manner ambiguous.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure. But do you think supreme laws don't ever have any drawbacks or limits?

You don't think there are any drawbacks or limits to other constitutional things like freedom of speech, or press, or religion, etc...?

Here, at least, is what the Supreme Court has said about it:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
-Justice Antonin Scalia
 
Wings said:
The bill of rights is not a list of laws.
It’s a list of rights everyone has that no law can be made to infringe upon.

The Supreme Court has done a terrible job of insuring that; see immigration checkpoints 100 miles inland from the border.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This is a common misunderstading. Read the post above about what the Supreme Court has said about that.
 
ataraxia said:
Yeah sure. But do you think supreme laws don't ever have any drawbacks or limits?

You don't think there are any drawbacks or limits to other constitutional things like freedom of speech, or press, or religion, etc...?

Here, at least, is what the Supreme Court has said about it:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
-Justice Antonin Scalia
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary to the security of a free State; well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Since you have been wrong in the past, I am assuming you are wrong now. That's your argument, speaking of flawed logic.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I am saying they are not automatically correct just because they've been correct in the past ... come on man , this is getting silly
 
Manc Skipper said:
The "supreme law of the land" is merely an amendment to the supreme law of the land. An afterthought. A codicil.
Click to expand...

the main document never gave the government any power in the area
 
mrdeltoid said:
I've been engaging with a poster that believes the 2a should be repealed. So, what say you? Would you vote to repeal the 2nd amendment? yes or no
Click to expand...


A vote to repeal the 2nd equals a vote for a future Leftist dictatorship and holocaust.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Wrong again. I am saying they are not automatically correct just because they've been correct in the past ... come on man , this is getting silly
Click to expand...
Yes, but you are wrong by an order of magnitude of order more than they are. I am not saying they are always right, but that they right much, much more often than wrong. Further, their decisions compromise constitutional decisions.

They are a much greater authority and guidance than almost anything else. I am hoping there are no more contrived arguments on this...

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
danielpalos said:
Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary to the security of a free State; well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, so do psychiatric patients, terrorists, and felons.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Yes, but you are wrong by an order of magnitude of order more than they are. I am not saying they are always right, but that they right much, much more often than wrong. Further, their decisions compromise constitutional decisions.

They are a much greater authority and guidance than almost anything else. I am hoping there are no more contrived arguments on this...

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Then surely you must agree with conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”
 
ataraxia said:
Then surely you must agree with conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”
Click to expand...
Like everyone arguing for more gun control you are missing the context. The context is enumerating which restrictions the court had no intention to strike down, not an open license to add more.

It was the opinion for Heller. Read it quite a bit.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom