• 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!

What do you define as reasonable restrictions for the second amendment?

What do you define as reasonable restrictions for the second amendment?


  • Total voters
    24
Of course I can't see the purpose of these prohibitionist strategies that others push, particularly the minimum age restrictions

So you think a five-year-old should be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a gun and ammo without anyone asking any questions whatsoever?
 
So you think a five-year-old should be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a gun and ammo without anyone asking any questions whatsoever?

Possibly, though I'm not aware of many five-year-olds that would have the initiative or ultimate competence to do so. I think five-year-olds' current incapacities to responsibly manage firearms are due to their lack of training, of course, as young children have possessed the ability to manage lethal weapons competently in "primitive" societies.
 
I wasn't aware that there was a substantial insurgency in existence, or that they possessed military-grade weaponry. Has this been published in a mises.org blog post that I'm unaware of?

So, what was your point then, oh brilliant one? Rage said we have weapons in case we need to overthrow the government. You implied that this was not feasible because the government has super-awesome military technology. Apparently, you know something about military strategy and tactics that I don't because I always thought counter-insurgency operations were a lot more complex than simply having nice fighter jets and shiny weapons.

Please, enlighten me as to your unique viewpoint; wow me with your vast reservoir of military knowledge. I’m ever so anxious!
 
So, what was your point then, oh brilliant one? Rage said we have weapons in case we need to overthrow the government. You implied that this was not feasible because the government has super-awesome military technology. Apparently, you know something about military strategy and tactics that I don't because I always thought counter-insurgency operations were a lot more complex than simply having nice fighter jets and shiny weapons.

Please, enlighten me as to your unique viewpoint; wow me with your vast reservoir of military knowledge. I’m ever so anxious!

Actually, no, it would be unfeasible in the case of both wide distribution of military-grade weaponry among state personnel and a lack of sufficient political turbulence to spark a violent insurrection, both of which are factors that prevent it. Shocking though it might sound, the lack of any substantial insurgency might also prove to be a complication. Believe it or not, your backyard picnic doesn't count.
 
Actually, no, it would be unfeasible in the case of both wide distribution of military-grade weaponry among state personnel...

What's that got to do with anything? You just give government personnel some "military grade weaponry" and the war is over? Just like that, huh?

Hold on, I have to get in touch with General Petraeus, I just found out how to win in Afghanistan.

Petraeus: Give the troops guns? Nice ones? Really!? I never thought of that before! Thanks!

...and a lack of sufficient political turbulence to spark a violent insurrection, both of which are factors that prevent it. Shocking though it might sound, the lack of any substantial insurgency might also prove to be a complication. Believe it or not, your backyard picnic doesn't count.

Nobody's contesting the current absence of an insurgency, nor is anyone contesting the fact that the lack of an insurgency precludes the successful overthrow of a tyrannical government. Please give your army of straw men the order to withdraw from intellectual combat.
 
What's that got to do with anything? You just give government personnel some "military grade weaponry" and the war is over? Just like that, huh?

Hold on, I have to get in touch with General Petraeus, I just found out how to win in Afghanistan.

Petraeus: Give the troops guns? Nice ones? Really!? I never thought of that before! Thanks!

You might have to get General Petraeus in Afghanistan first, since he doesn't happen to be there at the moment. Shocking, I know, but it's not exactly top-secret information limited to us classified folk. :2wave:

That situation is one that involves belligerents all in control of military-grade weaponry, many of them in illegal control of it. Squabbling about the legal right to control far weaker weaponry is of little consequence in the case of the development of an actual insurgency, in which case military-grade and unconventional weaponry would likely be seized and hoarded, unless you're planning on taking out an Abrams with your trusty Glock.

Nobody's contesting the current absence of an insurgency, nor is anyone contesting the fact that the lack of an insurgency precludes the successful overthrow of a tyrannical government. Please give your army of straw men the order to withdraw from intellectual combat.

Quick, look out the window! Was that a point that just whizzed by? :shock:
 
You might have to get General Petraeus in Afghanistan first, since he doesn't happen to be there at the moment. Shocking, I know, but it's not exactly top-secret information limited to us classified folk. :2wave:

Yes, I'm aware. Apparently, you're unfamiliar with his role as the Commander of CENTCOM.

That situation is one that involves belligerents all in control of military-grade weaponry, many of them in illegal control of it. Squabbling about the legal right to control far weaker weaponry is of little consequence in the case of the development of an actual insurgency, in which case military-grade and unconventional weaponry would likely be seized and hoarded, unless you're planning on taking out an Abrams with your trusty Glock.

Yea, rifles and machine guns are of no use to any insurgency. Good point.
 
Yes, I'm aware. Apparently, you're unfamiliar with his role as the Commander of CENTCOM.

Given that it was well-publicized news, I'm afraid not. It's just perhaps evidence of your unfamiliarity with chain-of-command issues (it's a bit more complicated than hamburger externalities, you see ;)) that you'd not be interested in addressing so unlikely a figure as say...the commander in Afghanistan? :shrug:

Yea, rifles and machine guns are of no use to any insurgency. Good point.

It seems, then, that referring to ownership of civilian-grade technology as a necessary means of revolting against the government when the time comes is rather hopeless.
 
That's pleasantly archaic, considering the advent of military-grade technology that can blow you and your little peashooter into smithereens. :shrug:

That is why civilians should be able to get the same weapons as the military. Kind of hard to overthrow the government when civilians have civilian grade weapons.

Please save you we have the most advance military in the world civilians can't possibly stand a chance against them. Look how long it is taking our military in Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
As soon as you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, I will give merit to your argument.
As soon as you get the Supreme Court to agree with YOU, I will give merit to YOURS.

That said:
They did agree with me, in Heller v DC, regarding handguns, which, as noted before, was rooted in the Miller decision.
Apply the same argument to all other firearms, and there you go.

Unless, of course, you can explain how the arguments in those decisions would NOT then extend to all firearms.
 
Last edited:
Given that it was well-publicized news, I'm afraid not. It's just perhaps evidence of your unfamiliarity with chain-of-command issues (it's a bit more complicated than hamburger externalities, you see ;)) that you'd not be interested in addressing so unlikely a figure as say...the commander in Afghanistan? :shrug:



It seems, then, that referring to ownership of civilian-grade technology as a necessary means of revolting against the government when the time comes is rather hopeless.

The Commander of CENTCOM is responsible for the entire Middle Eastern theater; that includes Afghanistan.

What's "civilian-grade technology"?
 
The Commander of CENTCOM is responsible for the entire Middle Eastern theater; that includes Afghanistan.

What's "civilian-grade technology"?
What you forget:
The probability of failure does not negate the right to try.
 
:fyi: They are not unconstitutional for the same reason that shouting "Fire!" falsely in a crowded theater is not unconstitutional.
Not sure what you mean... the laws prohibiting yelling fire in a theater are not unconstitutional because doing so is not 'free speech' in that it places others in a condition of immediate clear and present danger.
 
Not sure what you mean... the laws prohibiting yelling fire in a theater are not unconstitutional because doing so is not 'free speech' in that it places others in a condition of immediate clear and present danger.

The whole "shouting fire" thing has to be one of the widest used misuses of an argument ever. People always use it without really thinking as to why these things aren't legal. There is a limitation to our rights, it is that we may not infringe upon the rights of others. That's the one natural restriction to the exercise of rights.
 
And one of the most misunderstood. It was actually an example of what OWH, Jr., considered the most stringent example of the protection of free speech, and in no way was any actual ruling in the case. The case itself was about distributing anti-draft leaflets during WWI.

In a case, by the way, which was later overturned, and the example doesn't even apply anymore. The standard became "inciting imminent lawless action," not just panic.

But even supposing it were the actual holding of the case, and that the case was still controlling law, very few people would even begin to know how to apply it, especially in any realm not having to do with free speech.

"You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater!!!!!!" OK, then what? It justifies no specific limitation on any other right.
 
What I find really funny about this thread is that the people who support weapons restrictions also support unlimited voting after 18, which does far worse damage than a gun could ever do.

So I'll vote for no restrictions, I have to protect myself from the sheep with "mainstream" beliefs.
 
Not sure what you mean... the laws prohibiting yelling fire in a theater are not unconstitutional because doing so is not 'free speech' in that it places others in a condition of immediate clear and present danger.

I would say that a private citizen owning a nuclear weapon places others in a condition of immediate clear and present danger.
 
I would say that a private citizen owning a nuclear weapon places others in a condition of immediate clear and present danger.

Not necessarily. If that citizen had the capability and know-how to stabilize it for a prolonged period of time he could store it without any immediate danger to others around him.

So, maybe owning a nuke is a "right" in the most extreme sense of the word, but that doesn't mean society can't - or shouldn't - infringe upon that right.

I'm comfortable with banning people from owning nuclear weapons, even though it would be the most spectacularly redundant law ever, because no individual person has the means to create one, but I would ban it with the caveat that, yes, perhaps we are infringing upon a right. I'm just more comfortable when the decisions we make are based upon honesty instead of some convoluted "intellectual" argument.
 
I would say that a private citizen owning a nuclear weapon places others in a condition of immediate clear and present danger.
Nuclear weapons aren't 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd amendment.

So, I am still not sure what you mean.
 
"You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater!!!!!!" OK, then what? It justifies no specific limitation on any other right.
"Fire in a theater" is analogous to firing a gun into the air while within city limits.
 
What do you define as reasonable restrictions to the second amendment? This is mostly aimed at the 35 plus people who voted in this thread. Everybody has their own interpretation of what exactly is "reasonable".

Permits/licenses for firearms/weapons

Fire arms/weapons registrations

Waiting Periods.

Laws governing how firearms are to be stored.

Firearms/weapon class requirement.

Convicted felons and certified crazy people permanently banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify)

Convicted felons and certified crazy people temporarily banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify)

Age minimum requirement to buy firearms/weapons(please specify)

Firearm magazine size restrictions(please specify)

ban on certain firearms/weapons (please specify)

other(please specify)

It is my belief that you do not need permission from the government in order to exercise a right. It is also my belief that our founding forefathers created the second amendment as a means for individuals to protect themselves and loved ones, to to protect this country if it was ever invaded, and to over throw the government if it became too tyrannical/ corrupt. So the government therefore has no business restricting any firearms or which law abiding citizens can own firearms.

This poll is pretty meaningless in that many of the choices already exist as laws. I am struggling to see a point.

Other than the BAN on weapons which many on the left are attempting to promote, where is the choice for "Leave current laws in place," or "enforce existing laws?"

Perhaps the REAL debate would be how is disarming law abiding citizens going to reduce crime?
 
This poll is pretty meaningless in that many of the choices already exist as laws.

snip....


Other than the BAN on weapons which many on the left are attempting to promote, where is the choice for "Leave current laws in place," or "enforce existing laws?"

Most states do not have waiting periods, back ground checks, permits/licenses, fire arms registration or laws on how firearms should be stored.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : State Gun Laws


I am struggling to see a point.

The point is to see what "Reasonable restrictions" means to those who claim to support reasonable restrictions or reasonable gun laws, what is reasonable to one person is not to another person.
 
The point is to see what "Reasonable restrictions" means to those who claim to support reasonable restrictions or reasonable gun laws, what is reasonable to one person is not to another person.
That's because, to most, "reasnoable" means "what I think is a good idea".
There is rarely any sort of objective standard to quantify this, and so "a good idea" is usually very subjective and almost always boils doen to "how I think it should be".

That's why I said that for a restriction be "reasonable" it had to meet two standards -- actually have some positive effect on gun violence and not violate the constitution -- else it is useless and/or unconstitutional; a useless and/or unconstitutional restriction could not, objectively, be held as "reasonable".
 
Last edited:
Most states do not have waiting periods, back ground checks, permits/licenses, fire arms registration or laws on how firearms should be stored.
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : State Gun Laws

Three things; using the Brady web site for any argument on second amendment rights is beyond laughable and borders on disbelief; two, the amusing thing about the Brady scoring system is that the states they rate the highest for their gun laws also happen to have the highest rates of gun violence; and three, is it your contention that States do not have the right to legislate their own needs as it relates to gun laws as long as they do not violate the second amendment?

I seriously doubt that anyone would agree that waiting periods should fall in the realm of a uniform national Federal law as every state has different issues and concerns; after all, we are a federation of States, not a conglomerate of citizens.

The point is to see what "Reasonable restrictions" means to those who claim to support reasonable restrictions or reasonable gun laws, what is reasonable to one person is not to another person.

That is not a point; a point would be to determine a consensus for what is deemed to be "reasonable." Good luck with that one though. :rofl
 
Three things; using the Brady web site for any argument on second amendment rights is beyond laughable and borders on disbelief;

If you want a good source of anti-2nd amendment laws then a anti-2nd amendment website is a good source for that information.



two, the amusing thing about the Brady scoring system is that the states they rate the highest for their gun laws also happen to have the highest rates of gun violence;

They also give states with the most anti-2nd amendment laws the best scores.

and three, is it your contention that States do not have the right to legislate their own needs as it relates to gun laws as long as they do not violate the second amendment?

The second amendment says " shall not infringe".So anything that basically requires you to seek permission from the government is an infringement and makes it a privilege instead of a right. Last I check it was the bill of rights not the bill of privileges.





That is not a point; a point would be to determine a consensus for what is deemed to be "reasonable." Good luck with that one though. :rofl

I made the thread so I know what the point of the thread is.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom