• 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!

Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Are ANY government regulations of the 2nd Amendment acceptable?


  • Total voters
    70
Well if the guy is crazy...
I said:

That doesnt change the fact that simple possession -- by a person who has the right to keep and bear arms -- doesn't endanger anyone.

This covers crazy people, who do not have that right.
 
Do we collectively (the government) have a right to regulate/control a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment Rights?

I am always amused when Liberals have polls on the second amendment because the following choices you included in your poll basically spell out the arrogance and condescension one sees when having such serious debates:

A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry full auto weapons.
A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry flame throwers.
A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry tactical nukes.
gun restrictions are necessary to prevent unauthorized use by nuts.


Once again, you cannot possibly be serious right?
:rofl

But again, the real reason such polls are farcical is that we already have a HUGE pile of regulations on weapons in this country and to engage in such a debate presumes there either aren't any, or not enough. It is trite and disingenuous, but then when it comes to the second amendment, or the first for that matter, the Left prefers a selective interpretation rather than accept the language contained within the document.
 
I said:

That doesnt change the fact that simple possession -- by a person who has the right to keep and bear arms -- doesn't endanger anyone.

This covers crazy people, who do not have that right.

And they can keep their guns. No need to keep people from having guns if there is no danger in it. The only regulation in this field that I am arguing for is keeping guns away from clinically insane people. No regulation would dictate that they would be able to carry, and use guns, right? I'm arguing against that, and only that.
 
And they can keep their guns. No need to keep people from having guns if there is no danger in it. The only regulation in this field that I am arguing for is keeping guns away from clinically insane people. No regulation would dictate that they would be able to carry, and use guns, right? I'm arguing against that, and only that.
Yes... and -I- ewas arguing against the statement that:

For example - after looking at factors like population and crime rate, they may decide it wouldn't be a great idea for people to have automatic rifles in one place or another.
 
If it happened, provide the quotes smear boy.

You know I can provide quotes of you lying and flipflopping, so where is your credibility now ? Liar flip flopper and unsubstantiated accusation slinger, the Trifecta :roll:



Your 4 year old is, right, because you said she is "free" right ?

Or was you saying she was "free" just another one of your lies ?



False, whether you are aware of it or not.



I agree, all of your attempts to use your daughter as a Red Herring distraction are thus.



You said free, and you apparently lied, or are a terrible parent, which is it ?

You can stop using your poorly parented daughter as a red herring anytime you choose.

Well, it seems that, yet again... attempting to communicate with you in the hopes that you will be reasonable, logical, honest or interesting is a complete and utter waste of time. At least you are consistent kiddo. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom