• 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
Because their benefit to society outweighs their danger.

What is the benefit of a baseball bat? Play a game? There are far more other ways to get entertainment besides baseball. Not much of a benefit there. Bash someones head in? Not very beneficial to the person that has a crushed skull wouldn't you say?
 
Because their benefit to society outweighs their danger.

The benefit of a citizens being able to keep a tyrannical government at bay and to protect itself from invasion outweighs the need for a false sense of safety with anti-2nd amendment laws.
 
Nukes would not be needed as no government would use nukes against it's own populace as that would SEVERLY damage their public images with not only its civilians but also it's world image.

And as far as fighter jets why not allow civilians to have them? Assuming that they can pass the flight tests I see no reason to not allow them to have jets. Of course it's not like private airplanes couldn't be outfitted with weapons anyways.

Aircraft carriers? Actually I don't think that there is a law stating that civilians can't have ships that can carry/launch aircraft.

it's always funny to see the anti-gunners bring this up.

"If you can have this, why not have a nuke?!?! or a bomb or a aircraft carrier, or a tank!!!"


Fact of the matter is, we're not talking about Nuclear Devices, Bombs, or vehicles.

We're talking about modern firearms.
 
Because their benefit to society outweighs their danger.

A machine gun's danger far outweighs any benefit to normal society. (that's why the NFA regulates them so tightly & has since 1934)

That's your interpretation of why baseball bats exist.

I could care less about why you think something exists... as I don't think the same thing.

So, please explain to me why they're not regulated? Keeping in mind, I have seen people beaten to death with a baseball bat... and I have seen people stabbed w/ kitchen knives, and beaten with tire irons.

Why are they not regulated?
 
Sorry all.....I have a few things I have to get done so we'll just have to continue this later!;)
 
I never bought that argument. If you take that thinking to its logical conclusion, civilians would need nukes, aircraft carriers & jet fighter to have a fair fight against their government.
To me..that's a small, far right "Fringe" argument that very few believe.

I want the chance. There are natural limitations in the weaponry that we have built. You can't have biological, nuclear, chemical weapons etc. The government does have these things. That doesn't mean it's hopeless, it doesn't mean it's not worth trying. I want the chance. If government should behave so improperly that it must justly be overthrown, I want the chance to do so. If I die, I die; but I'll get to die free. At least I have that. Plus I have the chance of changing it as well. I don't care what chances people think we have or not; the chance is important for in the chance is the placement of ultimate power. Is it the People or the State who is the seat of all power? If you believe the People, then they get the chance to dispose of the State should the State not serve the purpose of the People. If you believe the State is the seat of power, it's the opposite. The People don't even deserve the chance, don't even try it's not worth it. Obey obey obey, the State knows what's best for you.

So what is it? The People or the State?
 
One last quick point for now:

By the poll results so far, it would seem that more people buy the "Reasonable regulations are acceptable." argument than the one I'm hearing right now.

I'll be back;)
 
One last quick point for now:

By the poll results so far, it would seem that more people buy the "Reasonable regulations are acceptable." argument than the one I'm hearing right now.

So, the majority is imposing it's will on the minority..

That's just another day in US Politics...


What's your point?
 
One last quick point for now:

By the poll results so far, it would seem that more people buy the "Reasonable regulations are acceptable." argument than the one I'm hearing right now.

I'll be back;)

You're gonna need those regulations right quick if your plan is to take my guns or my liberty.
 
One last quick point for now:

By the poll results so far, it would seem that more people buy the "Reasonable regulations are acceptable." argument than the one I'm hearing right now.

An appeal to authority is nothing but a fallacy argument.

The fact is reasonable is subjective. So it proves little. I mean even I think some reasonable laws are OK. I think yours are unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
One last quick point for now:

By the poll results so far, it would seem that more people buy the "Reasonable regulations are acceptable." argument than the one I'm hearing right now.

I'll be back;)

Everyone has a different definition of what reasonable regulations means.
 
There should be only one absolute requirement for owning a fire arm, and that is completion of an appropriate fire arm safety course.
 
There should be only one absolute requirement for owning a fire arm, and that is completion of an appropriate fire arm safety course.

I don't even like that because you can then make it so the class is once a year at some horrible time people can't make or that it costs exorbitant amounts of money, thus creating an effective backdoor ban on firearms.
 
I don't even like that because you can then make it so the class is once a year at some horrible time people can't make or that it costs exorbitant amounts of money, thus creating an effective backdoor ban on firearms.
Oh come on, I think that really is just common sense. No one is born with proper training. All our soldiers get that training.
 
Oh come on, I think that really is just common sense. No one is born with proper training. All our soldiers get that training.

No one is born with proper training, but it's up to them to get it. Making them complete tasks given by the government to exercise a right opens up way too many channels for abuse and oppressions.
 
There should be only one absolute requirement for owning a fire arm, and that is completion of an appropriate fire arm safety course.

I'll support that as long as the appropriate firearm safety course is mandatory in the Senior year of high school.
 
They tried REAL HARD & severely wounded many including cops who they outgunned at the time.

Newsflash: Sometimes cops get shot at.

What a silly argument....Are you saying these guys didn't present a lethal danger to the city for quite a while?

I wasn't making an argument. Just stating a fact. Those two didn't kill ANYONE. Why? Because they didn't know how to employ their weapon systems properly.

Ever had a gun pointed at you?

I've been in a fire fight. Not sure if anyone aimed specifically at me but I know what it's like.
 
The fallacies have flown so thick and so fast I don't know if I can keep up with them all.


Comparing cars and guns is fallacious. Cars are not a right guaranteed in the Constitution for one thing. For another, if you lack a car when you need one, the consequence is that travel is more difficult. If you lack a firearm when you need one for self-protection, the consequence may be death, or worse.

Body armor is a defense. Regulating a defensive item that is itself incapable of inflicting harm is nonsensical. So criminals might use them to confound the police? Deal with it...put a .308 in every other patrol car. Criminals use cars too, sometimes to run down officers...haven't heard of anyone calling for an automobile ban. As for when a civilian would need one...when something goes bump in the night, I don't call 911 (they take forever), I slip on my kevlar vest, grab my AK47 and go check. Most of the time it is nothing... if it ever is something, I want all the advantages I can get. Body armor? check. AK47 with 30 round mag? check. Skillz? check.

The military consists of about 3.5 million individuals, last time I checked. The population is about 300 million. Nukes and aircraft carriers aren't necessary to protect against a government turned tyrannical, infantry weapons will suffice. This assumes all the military would side with the gov't, which I doubt.

Nor is "in defense of liberty against tyranny" remotely a view of the far-right fringe...it is a view of most of the people that I know, including most current or prior service LEOs.

What constitutes "reasonable regulations" will vary greatly depending on the individual. To me, NICS is borderline reasonable. A shall-issue permit for anything heavier than a select-fire M4 is maybe reasonable. A shall-issue permit for concealed carry (meaning they MUST issue you a permit if you have a clean background and pass a fairly simple course) is dubious, to be honest I consider it somewhat of an infringement but I accept it as a necessary step towards no-license-needed open-or-concealed carry. Most anything else I consider unreasonable.

As I've said elsewhere, if we kept murderers, armed robbers, rapists, 'hot' burglars and such locked up for life and never let them out after their 1st offense, and put anyone who accumulated 3 felonies away for life, and did away with plea-bargaining, we wouldn't need to worry much about felons getting guns....almost all of them would be in prison!

We need criminal control, not gun control. When we, as a society, say "enough coddling violent criminals!" and start really putting them away and keeping them there, in short when we have real criminal control in this country, then if there's still too much violent crime (which I doubt) we'll talk about gun control.

It ain't the object that's the problem, it's the scumbag using it.
 
Last edited:
An appeal to authority is nothing but a fallacy argument.

The fact is reasonable is subjective. So it proves little. I mean even I think some reasonable laws are OK. I think yours are unreasonable.



So the bottom line is we both agree that reasonable gun control laws are "OK". Politics is the art of compromise so all we have to do is negotiate our differences & decide what gun control laws are reasonable & which one are unreasonable.

What I totally disagree with is the minority who believe that no gun controls are ever reasonable. That is a totally unreasonable opinion, imo.

Example:
Background checks...For those who do not oppose checking to see if a potential gun buyer is a felon/pedophile, the question is how long is reasonable to allow government to perform a background check b4 you can buy that weapon?

I'd say that 1 month would be to long & therefore unreasonable.
I'd say that 1 week is reasonable

This is the type of thing legislatures can thrash out.
 
Last edited:
So the bottom line is we both agree that reasonable gun control laws are "OK". Politics is the art of compromise so all we have to do is negotiate our differences & decide what gun control laws are reasonable & which one are unreasonable.

What I totally disagree with is the minority who believe that no gun controls are ever reasonable. That is a totally unreasonable opinion, imo.

Ok, here's the compromise: I'll carry open or concealed, loaded or unloaded, any pistol or rifle, without limitation, even onto public school grounds, without official record or permit.

In return, you get mandatory gun-ed classes in the school to support the "every American is a rifleman first" culture and a nationalized gun-care program.
 
Last edited:
So the bottom line is we both agree that reasonable gun control laws are "OK". Politics is the art of compromise so all we have to do is negotiate our differences & decide what gun control laws are reasonable & which one are unreasonable.

What I totally disagree with is the minority who believe that no gun controls are ever reasonable. That is a totally unreasonable opinion, imo.

That minority is probably a lot larger than you think. Millions, certainly, probably tens of millions. There are an estimated 80-90 million lawful gunowning households in the US.

Example:
Background checks...For those who do not oppose checking to see if a potential gun buyer is a felon/pedophile, the question is how long is reasonable to allow government to perform a background check b4 you can buy that weapon?

I'd say that 1 month would be unreasonable & to long
I'd say that 1 week is reasonable

This is the type of thing legislatures can thrash out.

There's absolutely no need for that. The NICS system is perfectly capable of running a background check on a person in typically about 20 minutes. That's how long it took the last time I bought a gun.
 
Last edited:
Ok, here's the compromise: I'll carry open or concealed, loaded or unloaded, any pistol or rifle, without limitation, even onto public school grounds, without official record or permit.

In return, you get mandatory gun-ed classes in the school to support the "every American is a rifleman first" culture and a nationalized gun-care program.

Your compromise I would not consider reasonable for any number of reasons. Therefore, if I was a legislator I would reject your proposal.
 
So the bottom line is we both agree that reasonable gun control laws are "OK". Politics is the art of compromise so all we have to do is negotiate our differences & decide what gun control laws are reasonable & which one are unreasonable.

The difference is I have posted facts to back up my position. It is not just "opinion" backed up with nothing.

Your position is completely out of whack with the reality of the crime statistics.

What I totally disagree with is the minority who believe that no gun controls are ever reasonable. That is a totally unreasonable opinion, imo.

I agree to a point. But most gun laws are stupid feel good measures that do little like the pathetic assault weapons ban. What a joke piece of legislation that was.

Example:
Background checks...For those who do not oppose checking to see if a potential gun buyer is a felon/pedophile, the question is how long is reasonable to allow government to perform a background check b4 you can buy that weapon?

I'd say that 1 month would be to long & therefore unreasonable.
I'd say that 1 week is reasonable

This is the type of thing legislatures can thrash out.

It can be done over the phone or computer in minutes, not days.
 
Would be nice...."every American is a rifleman first"....has a nice ring to it ;)

Every American physically and mentally capable of serving in the Armed Forces (whether they do or not) should be trained to handle the light weapons commonly used by infantry.
Either that or we have the French train us in the art of surrender.
 
Back
Top Bottom