• 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

Devil505

Banned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,512
Reaction score
315
Location
Masschusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Do we collectively (the government) have a right to regulate/control a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment Rights?
 
Do we collectively (the government) have a right to regulate/control a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment Rights?
"Shall not be infringed" == no.
 
In what terms? I mean this debate has always sorta spun out to some level of absurdity. If we're merely talking firearms, such as hand guns, assault rifles, fully automatics, etc; then no I don't think there can be proper regulation on it and still be constitutional. But we can always take things to extremes, what about nuclear weapons, biological, etc. At some point when we go into machinery and weaponry there becomes a point in which everyone says "ok, the People cannot be allowed to have X".

In terms of firearms, I don't even like background checks...I can grudgingly put up with them if they are instantaneous. I don't believe in waiting periods, permits, or anything else which infringes upon the right of the individual to keep and bear arms and which attempts to turn the right into a privilege.
 
In what terms? I mean this debate has always sorta spun out to some level of absurdity. If we're merely talking firearms, such as hand guns, assault rifles, fully automatics, etc; then no I don't think there can be proper regulation on it and still be constitutional. But we can always take things to extremes, what about nuclear weapons, biological, etc. At some point when we go into machinery and weaponry there becomes a point in which everyone says "ok, the People cannot be allowed to have X".

In terms of firearms, I don't even like background checks...I can grudgingly put up with them if they are instantaneous. I don't believe in waiting periods, permits, or anything else which infringes upon the right of the individual to keep and bear arms and which attempts to turn the right into a privilege.

Some good points there but I am think in terms of weighing an individual's 2nd Amendment rights vs our collective right (government) to protect ourselves. Don't we collectively have that right?
 
Under all circumstances/locations & with any type of weapon?
"Shall not be infringed" means you can't decide what type of weapon, nor can you inhibit a person toting that weapon down the street. Going into a place, public or private, is a different matter. As access itself is already limited and controlled, there is no impediment to also denying access to those who are considered inappropriately armed.
 
Some good points there but I am think in terms of weighing an individual's 2nd Amendment rights vs our collective right (government) to protect ourselves. Don't we collectively have that right?

A collective doesn't have rights, only individuals possess rights. Government also inherently has no rights.
 
Some good points there but I am think in terms of weighing an individual's 2nd Amendment rights vs our collective right (government) to protect ourselves. Don't we collectively have that right?

I do not believe the collective should have more rights then the individual. I believe that was the sole purpose of the 2nd amendment. Once you grant superior power to the collective and not to the individual such as we have now that collective can now subjugate the individual.
 
A collective doesn't have rights, only individuals possess rights. Government also inherently has no rights.

Your correct and I guess we shouldnt be calling it a "right". But the(government) still posses the powers granted by the constitution. So I guess he is asking should the government have more power(s) then the "people" as individuals.
 
I voted yes, but only reasonable regulations. People must remember that the were no such things as flame throwers (though I do not see the harm in a person owning one), nuclear weapons and other modern technology. Thus, only handguns, rifles, and the such should be unregulated.
 
Your correct and I guess we shouldnt be calling it a "right". But the(government) still posses the powers granted by the constitution. So I guess he is asking should the government have more power(s) then the "people" as individuals.

Government has privilege and duty granted to it by The People. The government uses our power and sovereignty to operate and does so through our consent.

The government is allowed to do a great many things since some things are easily handled on the aggregated scale of the federal government. But it may not act against the rights and liberties of the People.
 
I have no problem with some minor limitations. Wait periods do not bother me, registration does not bother, limits on fully automatic weapons don't bother me. I would not go past that point though.
 
Government has privilege and duty granted to it by The People. The government uses our power and sovereignty to operate and does so through our consent.

The government is allowed to do a great many things since some things are easily handled on the aggregated scale of the federal government. But it may not act against the rights and liberties of the People.

Perhaps I am guessing and making an incorrect assumption with the direction of the Ops question.

I am not disputing your views, I completely agree that this is what the constitution grants.
 
I have no problem with some minor limitations. Wait periods do not bother me, registration does not bother, limits on fully automatic weapons don't bother me. I would not go past that point though.

Registration and permits turn a right into a State granted privilege. It is important that we not abdicate our rights into the realm of State granted privilege.
 
I voted yes, but only reasonable regulations. People must remember that the were no such things as flame throwers (though I do not see the harm in a person owning one), nuclear weapons and other modern technology. Thus, only handguns, rifles, and the such should be unregulated.

So it would be ok in your book if, on New Years Eve (let's say) some people wandered around (drunk) in Times Square with loaded flame throwers strapped to their backs? (serious answer please)
 
I have no problem with some minor limitations. Wait periods do not bother me, registration does not bother, limits on fully automatic weapons don't bother me. I would not go past that point though.

The problem with federal government regulations is the constitution does not grant them the powers to impose much of what they have done. I believe this includes firearms.

The original meaning of regulate at the time of the constitution was "to make regular" and not "to restrict".
 
The problem with federal government regulations is the constitution does not grant them the powers to impose much of what they have done. I believe this includes firearms.

I believe that since the 1803 SCOTUS case of Marbury v. Madison, the SCOTUS decides what the Constitution grants or doesn't grant.
 
Reasonable regulations are acceptable, but the intent of the 2nd Amendment and the principle of armed citizenry in general would both hold that at a bare minimum any private citizen should be allowed to be armed as well as any single infantryman without interference. This means at the very least semi-automatic pistols and fully automatic rifles, as well as high capacity magazines and safety features such as flash and sound suppressors.

I am willing to accept licensing and regulation of explosives and machine guns, as long as the purpose and the effect of such licensing and regulation is supervisory rather than prohibitive.

Currently the vast majority of gun laws are neither reasonable nor acceptable. Prohibitions on either open or concealed carry are immoral, prohibitive licensing schemes on automatic weapons are immoral, restriction of the arms rights of ex-convicts is immoral, waiting periods and background checks are immoral, and city- and state-wide bans on handguns, fighting knives, and martial arts weapons are immoral, along with age limits higher than 18. Any legal citizen of full majority should be legally allowed to walk down the street with a holstered sidearm or a rifle in a sling across his back without fear of harassment by law enforcement or condemnation by private citizens.

Prohibition of mail order isn't immoral. But it's senseless.

On the other hand, the government is well within its prerogatives to restrict the bearing and usage of arms on its own property-- from school buildings to courthouses to federal parks-- and the debate over such laws should be focused on whether or not it is good policy to do so. The government has both the right and the legitimate duty to enforce the security of public officials, and anyone who is currently serving on probation or parole may be legitimately disarmed for the duration of their sentence, and their probation or parole legitimately revoked if they are found in violation. Anyone brandishing a firearm in public for reasons other than legitimate self-defense should be prosecuted as though they had fired it.
 
So it would be ok in your book if, on New Years Eve (let's say) some people wandered around (drunk) in Times Square with loaded flame throwers strapped to their backs? (serious answer please)

It is illegal in all fifty-states, as far as I know, for a person to carry a firearm while under the influence. I am not saying do away with common sense, but let them be reasonable, not regulation for the sake of regulation.
 
Registration and permits turn a right into a State granted privilege. It is important that we not abdicate our rights into the realm of State granted privilege.

I do not see it that way. It's not going to be a case where we are going to convince the other, so arguing about it is probably not worth the effort.
 
So it would be ok in your book if, on New Years Eve (let's say) some people wandered around (drunk) in Times Square with loaded flame throwers strapped to their backs? (serious answer please)

People wandering drunkenly in Times Square should be arrested for public intoxication and disorderly conduct whether they're armed or not. The flamethrowers would not aggravate the offense, as they are only hazardous if someone else is shooting at them or they have the pilots lit-- in which case they are brandishing weapons in public and should be prosecuted for that as well.
 
I do not see it that way. It's not going to be a case where we are going to convince the other, so arguing about it is probably not worth the effort.

Probably not. But a "permit" is a form of permission, if you have to ask permission then it's not a right but a privilege.
 
I do not see it that way. It's not going to be a case where we are going to convince the other, so arguing about it is probably not worth the effort.

I do not consider registration of firearms an infringement on rights, either. Requiring a permit, on the other hand, means that the government must give permission for someone to be armed-- which is very much an infringement of their right.

The only reason I oppose registration is that all of the people proposing it are people who have made no secret of their desire for prohibition and confiscation-- and thus I have good cause for concern that any such registry is going to be used for that purpose later.
 
I do not consider registration of firearms an infringement on rights, either.

The registration I don't like because it's government databasing and it's none of the government's business as to whether or not I exercise my rights. So I don't think they need to be keeping a list on me as to whether or not and which rights I am exercising.
 
How did permits get into this? I did not mention them. I mentioned wait periods and registration and fully automatic weapons.
 
Back
Top Bottom