• 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 2nd amendment

Your thoughts?

  • Repeal it and take outlaw guns.

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Amend it and outlaw some guns.

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Leave it alone.

    Votes: 15 65.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 26.1%
  • Total voters
    23
D

dex4974

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Messages
6,593
Reaction score
1,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
Time for another poll...

EDIT: I screwed up the first option. "Repeal it and outlaw guns."
 
Can't amend the 2dA (not enough support)

But people and certain types of guns can be well regulated
 
Watch video the past week and its pretty clear guns will be around in citizens hands for some time to come. The police will not protect you or your property

-VySky
 
My vote was for "leave it alone" because if the Second Amendment was repealed, nobody would have the right to own a gun.
 
Well, as the Second Amendment stands now, you can't have just any gun; you have to pick from a narrow list. You can have rifles, pistols and shotguns up to semi auto, but you can't have full auto weapons.

You can't have sawed off shotguns or rifles. And there's a lot of other things you can't have.

So the Second Amendment has been weakened quite a bit already.
 
Meanwhile... guns are flying off the shelf by the pallet. Hell, my “oh so liberal guns scare me” grand daughter called me and asked me for a gun. (Hell no). I told her to scream and spray him in the face with the de icer I bought her and get the hell out.
 
Blue Donkey said:
My vote was for "leave it alone" because if the Second Amendment was repealed, nobody would have the right to own a gun.
Click to expand...

Not true, it means it would go to the states to decide. Many states wouldn't repeal. I will agree with you on one thing though, I wouldn't want it repealed.
 
swing_voter said:
Well, as the Second Amendment stands now, you can't have just any gun; you have to pick from a narrow list. You can have rifles, pistols and shotguns up to semi auto, but you can't have full auto weapons.

You can't have sawed off shotguns or rifles. And there's a lot of other things you can't have.

So the Second Amendment has been weakened quite a bit already.
Click to expand...

This is always forgotten. The 'right to bear arms' has been infringed already, it's not 'virgo intacta'. If it were absolute it would be the same nationwide but It's up to the States to interpret and enforce it, and cities get a say too.
Everyone has the same degree of rights- they have whatever rights the government allows them.
 
Praxas said:
Not true, it means it would go to the states to decide. Many states wouldn't repeal. I will agree with you on one thing though, I wouldn't want it repealed.
Click to expand...

Many times I hated the Second Amendment because Republicans use it to argue no guns should be banned for any reason, even a few months after mass shootings happen. There must be a way to convince people "right to bear arms" does not equal letting anyone buy an assault rifle or a semi-automatic gun. It is just literally the right to own a gun, period.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Many times I hated the Second Amendment because Republicans use it to argue no guns should be banned for any reason, even a few months after mass shootings happen. There must be a way to convince people "right to bear arms" does not equal letting anyone buy an assault rifle or a semi-automatic gun. It is just literally the right to own a gun, period.
Click to expand...

What are you thinking? Like a single shot .22 as the allowed gun?
 
Moon said:
What are you thinking? Like a single shot .22 as the allowed gun?
Click to expand...

No weapons that have any automatic firing capabilities should be allowed. When someone pulls the trigger, no more than one bullet can come out of it.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Many times I hated the Second Amendment because Republicans use it to argue no guns should be banned for any reason, even a few months after mass shootings happen. There must be a way to convince people "right to bear arms" does not equal letting anyone buy an assault rifle or a semi-automatic gun. It is just literally the right to own a gun, period.
Click to expand...
Which "Republicans" have argued no guns should be banned for any reason?
"
 
Blue Donkey said:
No weapons that have any automatic firing capabilities should be allowed. When someone pulls the trigger, no more than one bullet can come out of it.
Click to expand...
We got that now.
 
Blue Donkey said:
No weapons that have any automatic firing capabilities should be allowed. When someone pulls the trigger, no more than one bullet can come out of it.
Click to expand...

US federal law mandates that fully automatic weapons made before 1986 to be registered with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. No fully automatic firearms made after 1986 can be registered, and, therefore, they are illegal to buy except under certain circumstances.


You're welcome.
 
trixare4kids said:
<snip>
No fully automatic firearms made after 1986 can be registered, and, therefore, they are illegal to buy except under certain circumstances.


You're welcome.
Click to expand...
So no automatic weapons can be be registered.

Except for the ones that CAN!

LOL
 
Last edited:
The Republican (7-2) Supreme Court erred with its very recent 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) stating for the first time that the right to bear arms is individual. The court needs to reverse itself to accept the understanding until then that the right is collective, meaning that it has to do with state militias (Home Guard).
 
SkyChief said:
So no automatic weapons can be be registered.

Except for the ones that CAN!

LOL
Click to expand...

I think Trix meant they couldn’t be manufactured for civilian use after 1986.
 
Just wondering...If black/brown militia groups existed what would be the response?
 
swing_voter said:
Well, as the Second Amendment stands now, you can't have just any gun; you have to pick from a narrow list. You can have rifles, pistols and shotguns up to semi auto, but you can't have full auto weapons.

You can't have sawed off shotguns or rifles. And there's a lot of other things you can't have.

So the Second Amendment has been weakened quite a bit already.
Click to expand...

that's why I voted OTHER. It should be enforced as intended-meaning no federal restrictions on what sort of firearms you can own and with the 14th amendment-state bans on what you can own would be stricken as well
 
Moon said:
What are you thinking? Like a single shot .22 as the allowed gun?
Click to expand...

Blue Donkey apparently is ignorant that the vast majority of firearms sold these days are semi autos.
 
Blue Donkey said:
No weapons that have any automatic firing capabilities should be allowed. When someone pulls the trigger, no more than one bullet can come out of it.
Click to expand...

that's what semi autos are-you cannot buy a firearm-made after May 19, 1986 that discharges more than one round for each pull of the trigger. Those that were made before that start at 7500 dollars
 
TurtleDude said:
Blue Donkey apparently is ignorant that the vast majority of firearms sold these days are semi autos.
Click to expand...

I’m guessing Blue Donkey has never held a gun in their life.

BTW, you have any opinion on guns chambered in 300BLK?
 
Jean-s said:
The Republican (7-2) Supreme Court erred with its very recent 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) stating for the first time that the right to bear arms is individual. The court needs to reverse itself to accept the understanding until then that the right is collective, meaning that it has to do with state militias (Home Guard).
Click to expand...

except no major league legal scholar believes the nonsense you are pushing and it flies in the face of the entire foundation upon which the constitution and the bill of rights is based. So you are completely wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom