• 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
stevenb said:
I have my CCW.. meaning I've gone above and beyond the NICS check.. as my fingerprints are in the FBI database and my background has been cleared by them.

So.. should I be able to legally own whatever type of firearm I would like?
Click to expand...

I'm not a firearms legal expert but, if what you say is true, I would say that you should be able to buy any firearm that doesn't fall under the restrictions of the NFA (1934) [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act]National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
I'm not a firearms legal expert but, if what you say is true, I would say that you should be able to buy any firearm that doesn't fall under the restrictions of the NFA (1934) National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

In my brutal and honest opinion, the NFA is unconstitutional.

I've proven that I'm competent handling firearms, have a clean record and statistically speaking CCW holders commit less than 1% of crime...

Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy firearms that would "fall under the NFA" regulations? (assuming it didn't exist)
 
stevenb said:
In my brutal and honest opinion, the NFA is unconstitutional.

I've proven that I'm competent handling firearms, have a clean record and statistically speaking CCW holders commit less than 1% of crime...

Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy firearms that would "fall under the NFA" regulations? (assuming it didn't exist)
Click to expand...

Argue your case b4 the SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Argue you case b4 the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing my case with the SCOTUS, I'm debating with you "reasonable regulation" in light of your views.


Why shouldn't I be allowed to own weapons that would fall under the NFA assuming it didn't exist?
 
Yes.

For that matter, I am not convinced the Second Amendment even applies in a society without a militia. Although, the Supreme Court has decided it does.
 
stevenb said:
I'm not arguing my case with the SCOTUS, I'm debating with you "reasonable regulation" in light of your views.


Why shouldn't I be allowed to own weapons that would fall under the NFA assuming it didn't exist?
Click to expand...

No ....you are wrong.....You are TRYING to debate me on this issue & while I can think of any number of reasons why I wouldn't want you to own certain weapons, I have neither the time nor inclination to join your (hypothetically based) debate at this time.
(if you scroll back through this thread, you will find such discussions relating to your hypothetical)

Feel free to go on without me though.;)
 
Last edited:
stevenb said:
I'm not arguing my case with the SCOTUS, I'm debating with you "reasonable regulation" in light of your views.


Why shouldn't I be allowed to own weapons that would fall under the NFA assuming it didn't exist?
Click to expand...


Perhaps I would have been more agreeable to such a debate if you hadn't chosen the personal attack route..ie the statement below:
(observation: It's not a very smart idea to attack someone... by calling them a terrorist..... & then to cordially invite them to debate you);)





stevenb said:
(actually afaic, you _are_ a terrorist as you were part of the DEA...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
Perhaps I would have been more agreeable to such a debate if you hadn't chosen the personal attack route..ie the statement below:
(observation: It's not a very smart idea to attack someone... by calling them a terrorist..... & then to cordially invite them to debate you);)
Click to expand...

You' haven't cordially debated in this entire thread.

You've played ignorant to the facts and ignorant to posts that were brought up in gun owners defense.

And, yes, as far as I'm concerned you are / were a domestic terrorist.

You are a domestic terrorist now, because you seek to infringe on the rights of other citizens in this country through legalities.

And you were a domestic terrorist because you worked for a corrupt government agency that sought to limit / take away people's freedom of choice.

So, screw you, and the little horse and pony show you rode in on.
 
stevenb said:
You' haven't cordially debated in this entire thread.

You've played ignorant to the facts and ignorant to posts that were brought up in gun owners defense.

And, yes, as far as I'm concerned you are / were a domestic terrorist.

You are a domestic terrorist now, because you seek to infringe on the rights of other citizens in this country through legalities.

And you were a domestic terrorist because you worked for a corrupt government agency that sought to limit / take away people's freedom of choice.

So, screw you, and the little horse and pony show you rode in on.
Click to expand...

I'm so hurt!:lol::2wave:
 
stevenb said:
Not trying to hurt your feelings, simply calling it as I see it. :roll:
Click to expand...

stevenb said:
You've played ignorant to the facts and ignorant to posts that were brought up in gun owners defense.
Click to expand...


stevenb said:
And, yes, as far as I'm concerned you are / were a domestic terrorist.
Click to expand...


stevenb said:
You are a domestic terrorist now, because you seek to infringe on the rights of other citizens in this country through legalities.
Click to expand...


stevenb said:
And you were a domestic terrorist because you worked for a corrupt government agency that sought to limit / take away people's freedom of choice.
Click to expand...


stevenb said:
So, screw you, and the little horse and pony show you rode in on.
Click to expand...


You just can't help yourself from lying on every post you make, can you?:liar

(don't try to sweet talk me now....The damage has been done!)
 
Last edited:
Devil505 said:
You just can't help yourself from lying on every post you make, can you?:liar

(don't try to sweet talk me now....The damage has been done!)
Click to expand...
Opinions ≠ lies. Learn the difference.
 
Devil505 said:
You just can't help yourself from lying on every post you make, can you?:liar

(don't try to sweet talk me now....The damage has been done!)
Click to expand...

My opinion of you and your lack of morals / testicular fortitude are just that.. My opinions of you.

Like I said, I call them like I see them... and as far as I'm concerned, you're just as bad as the red coats, and brown shirts of history.
 
Devil505 said:
Do we collectively (the government) have a right to regulate/control a law abiding citizen's 2nd Amendment Rights?
Click to expand...
In the same manner as 1st amendment rights are regulated, yes.

However, the poll choices you offer indicate you have no understanding of how this concept would apply.
 
Devil505 said:
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?
Click to expand...
My exercise of my 2nd amendment rights do not endanger you, and so you have nothing to protect yourself from.
 
Devil505 said:
No ....you are wrong.....You are TRYING to debate me on this issue & while I can think of any number of reasons why I wouldn't want you to own certain weapons...
Click to expand...
You can not want me to own them all you want -- if they fall under the definition of "arms" as it is used in the amendment, your desire is trumped by the constitution, and carries no more weight than someone not wanting you to express your political opinion by burning the flag.
 
repeter said:
Not being mean, but the I would love the irony of you getting shot and killed because there wasn't enough regulations. Same goes for everyone else wanting no regulations for gun ownership.
Click to expand...
Can you provise a list of people who advocate no regulation for gun ownership?
 
Devil505 said:
Ah.....So Beaver Cleaver's teacher (Miss Landers) should be wearing a bandoleer of 30cal ammo while toting an M-60 machine gun around the halls of her elementary school?:lol::shoot:eek:
Click to expand...
Not that you'd have any clue about this, but .30 cal ammo woudl be useless in an M60.
 
repeter said:
Not being mean, but the I would love the irony of you getting shot and killed because there wasn't enough regulations. Same goes for everyone else wanting no regulations for gun ownership.
Click to expand...


That's pretty rude, repeater. I thought better of you.

It's also inaccurate. I don't know why people who should know better, fail to accept that criminals don't obey gun laws. They buy guns on the black market. They steal them. If that didn't suffice, they'd smuggle them into the USA like the smuggle drugs. Gun control laws have not been shown to have any siginificant positive impact on crime in the USA, and could be argued as a negative toward public safety since they mostly disarm the law-abiding.

You can pass all the regulations you want, criminals will ignore them and get around them. Net effect zero or worse.

No criminal, intent on robbery or mass murder, ever stopped in front of a sign saying "No guns allowed past this point" and said "Darn! I was going to go in there and rob the place and maybe kill someone, but it says no guns! Bummer," and then walked away sulking.
 
Goshin said:
That's pretty rude, repeater. I thought better of you.

It's also inaccurate. I don't know why people who should know better, fail to accept that criminals don't obey gun laws. They buy guns on the black market. They steal them. If that didn't suffice, they'd smuggle them into the USA like the smuggle drugs. Gun control laws have not been shown to have any siginificant positive impact on crime in the USA, and could be argued as a negative toward public safety since they mostly disarm the law-abiding.

You can pass all the regulations you want, criminals will ignore them and get around them. Net effect zero or worse.

No criminal, intent on robbery or mass murder, ever stopped in front of a sign saying "No guns allowed past this point" and said "Darn! I was going to go in there and rob the place and maybe kill someone, but it says no guns! Bummer," and then walked away sulking.
Click to expand...

Plenty of crazies have though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom