• 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?

  • No. It's a Constitutional Right & no regulatioins are acceptable.

    Votes: 25 35.7%

  • Yes. Reasonable regulations are acceptable.

    Votes: 36 51.4%

  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry full auto weapons.

    Votes: 16 22.9%

  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry flame throwers.

    Votes: 7 10.0%

  • A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry tactical nukes.

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • gun restrictions are necessary to prevent unauthorized use by nuts.

    Votes: 12 17.1%
  • Total voters
    70
Redress said:
How did permits get into this? I did not mention them. I mentioned wait periods and registration and fully automatic weapons.
Click to expand...

Objection withdrawn, then. I'll not try to convince you that wait periods and prohibitions against fully automatics are infringements since, as you note, neither of us is likely to budge.
 
tlmorg02 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So by that logic the government should severely limit internet access since there was no internet back then, there were no porn magazines and television or radio back then either
 
celticlord said:
"Shall not be infringed" == no.
Click to expand...

That part always seems to elude people. I bet the same people who think the 2nd amendment should be restricted would be the same ones screaming bloody murder if the government banned anti-war protest and flag burning.
 
jamesrage said:
So by that logic the government should severely limit internet access since there was no internet back then, there were no porn magazines and television or radio back then either
Click to expand...

They do regulate it.
 
Redress said:
How did permits get into this? I did not mention them. I mentioned wait periods and registration and fully automatic weapons.
Click to expand...

I expanded into it as I put registrations and permits into the same category, i.e. places were government doesn't belong. Sorry. But I view anything which hampers ones ability to have and carry a gun at their leisure to be an infringement against the right to keep and bear arms. I don't think you need permits for open and concealed carry as I view both of those as automatic exercises of a right. I have the right to keep and bear arms, of course I can conceal or open carry where ever I want (barring private property where it is explicitly posted as no gun zone). I don't need permits. And the government does not need to keep a list of me and what and how many guns I own. None of their damned business, my right so they can keep their noses out of it.
 
Devil505 said:
I believe that since the 1803 SCOTUS case of Marbury v. Madison, the SCOTUS decides what the Constitution grants or doesn't grant.
Click to expand...

Yes but that does not mean that they always get it right. Notice that over the years they grant them more and more powers? SCOTUS has a bad habit of granting the federal government everything in the "grey" area which I believe should be left to the people.
 
No.

Precisely what "2nd Amendment Rights" are, however, is another question.
 
The Mark said:
Precisely what "2nd Amendment Rights" are, however, is another question.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in 2nd Amendment rights. The Constitution is nothing more than a handful of man's laws-- short-lived, short-reached, and short-sighted-- while the principle that a free citizen enjoys the privilege of bearing arms in his own homeland is a timeless moral principle that extends across cultural and geopolitical borders.

The weapons laws of Britain and Japan are no less inhuman and immoral than the weapons laws of the United States, despite the fact that they have no 2nd Amendment for their laws to violate.
 
I couldn't say it much better than Korimyr has, in his several posts.


Anything a well-equipped infantryman might be carrying, or any weapon useful for self-defense, sport, militia service, or other lawful purposes.

Nukes, bio, chem etc are taking things to ludicrous lengths. Strategic weapons like these are used against large populations, not on the battlefield or in self-defense, sport or other common useage.

One of the problems with this poll is one of the problems we have as a society in defining things surrounding this issue. "Reasonable regulations" means entirely different things to different people.

I think "reasonable regulations" means no WMD's, maybe a shall-issue license for explosives and support weapons; no private arms within prisons, jails, courtrooms or similar areas where security concerns are truly overwhelmingly vital... and not much else. Places that are normally open to the public without restriction should be open to the armed citizen, ie parks, malls, restaurants, etc.

If someone misuses a weapon negligently or criminally, by all means come down on them with the biggest hammer the law has on the books, but no prior restraint.

BTW, with a few exceptions this is what things are like in my home state. With a shall-issue CCW permit you can carry almost anywhere other than secure or posted places. You can own machineguns if you have a Class III license. You can buy most any other firearm freely. Yet, the rate of murder in my home state would come out ahead of virtually any jurisdiction in the USA that has draconian gun control.

As has been said, it is a right, not a privilege. You don't need a license to exercise free speech or freedom of religion.
 
Last edited:
Korimyr the Rat said:
I don't believe in 2nd Amendment rights. The Constitution is nothing more than a handful of man's laws-- short-lived, short-reached, and short-sighted-- while the principle that a free citizen enjoys the privilege of bearing arms in his own homeland is a timeless moral principle that extends across cultural and geopolitical borders.

The weapons laws of Britain and Japan are no less inhuman and immoral than the weapons laws of the United States, despite the fact that they have no 2nd Amendment for their laws to violate.
Click to expand...

Very good point.

My question would be...How do we make your ideal situation become law?
 
Goshin said:
Anything a well-equipped infantryman might be carrying, or any weapon useful for self-defense, sport, militia service, or other lawful purposes.

Nukes, bio, chem etc are taking things to ludicrous lengths. Strategic weapons like these are used against large populations, not on the battlefield or in self-defense, sport or other common useage.
Click to expand...

I do not consider these kinds of weapons to have any legitimate or lawful purpose in the hands of governments, either-- and I would support disarmament treaties concerning these weapons in a heartbeat as long as the rest of the world knew we were just as capable of committing genocide by conventional weaponry as by nuclear or biological, even after suffering a first strike.

The reason I oppose those weapons isn't that they can kill millions, it's that they are dirty and they ruin the land that they're used on. Scorched earth grows back, and usually grows back better; radioactive glass stays dead for a long, long time.
 
Goshin said:
I couldn't say it much better than Korimyr has, in his several posts.


Anything a well-equipped infantryman might be carrying, or any weapon useful for self-defense, sport, militia service, or other lawful purposes.

Nukes, bio, chem etc are taking things to ludicrous lengths. Strategic weapons like these are used against large populations, not on the battlefield or in self-defense, sport or other common useage.

One of the problems with this poll is one of the problems we have as a society in defining things surrounding this issue. "Reasonable regulations" means entirely different things to different people.

I think "reasonable regulations" means no WMD's, maybe a shall-issue license for explosives and support weapons; no private arms within prisons, jails, courtrooms or similar areas where security concerns are truly overwhelmingly vital... and not much else. Places that are normally open to the public without restriction should be open to the armed citizen, ie parks, malls, restaurants, etc.

If someone misuses a weapon negligently or criminally, by all means come down on them with the biggest hammer the law has on the books, but no prior restraint.

BTW, with a few exceptions this is what things are like in my home state. With a shall-issue CCW permit you can carry almost anywhere other than secure or posted places. You can own machineguns if you have a Class III license. You can buy most any other firearm freely. Yet, the rate of murder in my home state would come out ahead of virtually any jurisdiction in the USA that has draconian gun control.

As has been said, it is a right, not a privilege. You don't need a license to exercise free speech or freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

Now there is my favorite gun nut.
 
The Mark said:
My question would be... How do we make your ideal situation become law?
Click to expand...

I largely don't concern myself with it. It wouldn't bother me any more if the British or Japanese governments took to rounding up their citizens in slave labor camps and working them to death than it does that they are disarmed and held hostage by those same governments currently. They're not my people.

Here, I do what I can to support those organizations which exist to preserve the rights of armed free citizens-- though I find myself damned disappointed on a regular basis by the NRA's "no new infringements" stance. I find myself preferring groups like the JPFO and the Pink Pistols that target vulnerable populations and actively promote their armament. If there were a group that campaign vigorously for the repeal of existing gun laws, instead of the enforcement of them, I would support them wholeheartedly.

The way I see it, the best thing that people can do is to be reasonable and law-abiding and to ensure that they and their children are as well-armed and as well-trained as reason and the law allow. People who own guns and use guns don't normally support laws that will deprive them of their guns.
 
Redress said:
Now there is my favorite gun nut.
Click to expand...



..........:2bow:

:gunner: :blastem:

Thank you, thank you... no need for applause, just throw money...
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I largely don't concern myself with it. It wouldn't bother me any more if the British or Japanese governments took to rounding up their citizens in slave labor camps and working them to death than it does that they are disarmed and held hostage by those same governments currently. They're not my people.

Here, I do what I can to support those organizations which exist to preserve the rights of armed free citizens-- though I find myself damned disappointed on a regular basis by the NRA's "no new infringements" stance. I find myself preferring groups like the JPFO and the Pink Pistols that target vulnerable populations and actively promote their armament. If there were a group that campaign vigorously for the repeal of existing gun laws, instead of the enforcement of them, I would support them wholeheartedly.

The way I see it, the best thing that people can do is to be reasonable and law-abiding and to ensure that they and their children are as well-armed and as well-trained as reason and the law allow. People who own guns and use guns don't normally support laws that will deprive them of their guns.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.
 
Why do people complain about regulations to our 2nd amendment rights and not the regulations regarding the first amendment?
 
pro-bipartisan said:
Why do people complain about regulations to our 2nd amendment rights and not the regulations regarding the first amendment?
Click to expand...

People somehow understand that there are times you don't want someone to say anything, like "fire" in a crowded theater, but people don't understand its good to regulate who can get guns....like not letting convicts buying guns, and felons or whatever.
 
Does unregulated means whoever wants to buy a gun can buy one instantly with cash? If so, then the people who voted "no regulations are acceptable" are complete and total idiots. All there is to it.
 
repeter said:
Does unregulated means whoever wants to buy a gun can buy one instantly with cash? If so, then the people who voted "no regulations are acceptable" are complete and total idiots. All there is to it.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be able to buy guns with cash? People who wish to infringe upon the rights and liberties of the People are complete and total idiots. All there is to it.
 
I'm not the first to say it, but to add my voice to it --

The weaponry carried by a typical infantryman should be unrestricted.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not the first to say it, but to add my voice to it --

The weaponry carried by a typical infantryman should be unrestricted.
Click to expand...

I would say mortars should be allowed as well, although restricted.

Any militia would assuredly have a use for mortars.
And I think some small ones are able to be carried by a couple infantrymen
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not the first to say it, but to add my voice to it --

The weaponry carried by a typical infantryman should be unrestricted.
Click to expand...


Nice to hear that.

at4
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/AT4/AT4.jpg


FGM-148 Javelin
middle_1187089499.jpg



m240B
fn_mag_b.jpg


M249 SAW
m249saw-2.jpg


M16A4 with M203 grenade launcher
M16_M203_40mm_ammunition.JPEG


M4 with M203 grenade launcher
M4andM203.jpg
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
I would say mortars should be allowed as well, although restricted.

Any militia would assuredly have a use for mortars.
And I think some small ones are able to be carried by a couple infantrymen
Click to expand...

I think the AA-12 should be completely unrestricted too...because I would really really like one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom