• 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!

Gun Violence a Homeland Security Problem [W:20]

jet57 said:
Who said "change the constitution"? Not me...
Click to expand...

Yes. You did, regarding guns and gun laws. Here's how:

The Constitution is the law, and you said Congress can change laws, and the overarching law regarding arms in the US is the US Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, and therefore what I said, still stands - Congress cannot change the Constitution without 2/3rds of the states agreeing.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Yes. You did, regarding guns and gun laws. Here's how:

The Constitution is the law, and you said Congress can change laws, and the overarching law regarding arms in the US is the US Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, and therefore what I said, still stands - Congress cannot change the Constitution without 2/3rds of the states agreeing.
Click to expand...

I said congress could change laws. I didn't say that congress was going to change the second amendment.
 
jet57 said:
I said congress could change laws. I didn't say that congress was going to change the second amendment.
Click to expand...

Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Making laws to limit gun ownership and/or use, is an infringement... so, they would be enacting a change to the Second Amendment by fiat if they acted in a way that infringed on that right.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Making laws to limit gun ownership and/or use, is an infringement... so, they would be enacting a change to the Second Amendment by fiat if they acted in a way that infringed on that right.
Click to expand...

Please show me where I've said anything abut banning the second amendment.
 
Bootlace said:
I own a few ar-15s and if there ever were a day I would consider parting with them, today damn sure isn't it.
Click to expand...

just bought another one (it was ordered before the Orlando shooting) and bought a first run FAXON upper today
 
jet57 said:
Show me where I said it.
Click to expand...

you are fully in support of a complete ban on anyone but criminals and cops possessing AR 15 style rifles
 
jet57 said:
Please show me where I've said anything abut banning the second amendment.
Click to expand...

you apparently have no concept of what the second amendment means since you are on record wanting to ban all kinds of COMMONLY USED firearms that are Not UNUSUALLY dangerous
 
jet57 said:
Idiot bureaucrats are here by demand. GW Bush started Homeland Security, and homeland security is their job, so the radical second amendment crowd has been working against your interests from the outset. These ARs and AK etc are now national issue that we have to deal with, and the experts and law makers are going to deal with it because folks in your corner won't.

You get what you pay for in this world.
Click to expand...
Ok man.
 
jet57 said:
That's getting way off track, so I'm not going to address it. The point is - Homeland Security was initiated in order to protect this country from terrorist threats. Now they are exercising their authoritative opinion on domestic terrorism, and they say that assault weapons are a terrorist security issue and the proof bears that out.

So, since it's been determined to BE a security issue, how can you disagree with that? A terrorist with an AR15 is a national threat - full stop.
Click to expand...

They can say whatever they want, but until congress passes one it ain't happening. The democrats can keep talking like you are, and as long as they are they'll never re-take the house.

Certainly they'll have trouble re-taking the senate with that attitude, they can lose their remaining seats in Montana and ND, probably their current Alaska seat, never re-take Iowa... Yeah don't think the AWB is happening again, because it's a losing issue in a majority of states, as they learned the hard way the last time.
 
TurtleDude said:
just bought another one (it was ordered before the Orlando shooting) and bought a first run FAXON upper today
Click to expand...

I'm jealous. I can't buy any guns until I get another safe. Hopefully moving to idaho soon so I probably won't do that until I'm settled. I already have too much crap to pack.
 
flogger said:
Why would you need or want to own more than one ?
Click to expand...

Maybe so he can have them available for friends and family in case a "call to arms" scenario arises? Perhaps to sell one to people he knows well, but currently don't own any firearms?

People who might seek them someday due to fear of their government's abuses and don't want to leave a paper trail doing so?
 
flogger said:
Why would you need or want to own more than one ?
Click to expand...

I built my first one and my wife fell in love with it so I built her one. And that's where it all started. Some short, some long, some with optics, some with irons. They do a fine job of keeping coyotes away from the chicken coop and goat pens.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Maybe so he can have them available for friends and family in case a "call to arms" scenario arises? Perhaps to sell one to people he knows well, but currently don't own any firearms?

People who might seek them someday due to fear of their government's abuses and don't want to leave a paper trail doing so?
Click to expand...

If that is so then thats a deeply disturbing mindset to have
 
Bootlace said:
I built my first one and my wife fell in love with it so I built her one. And that's where it all started. Some short, some long, some with optics, some with irons. They do a fine job of keeping coyotes away from the chicken coop and goat pens.
Click to expand...

Why not just get a dog ?
 
flogger said:
If that is so then thats a deeply disturbing mindset to have
Click to expand...

In your opinion.

But as you indicate, you are British. Our cultures have diverged in a number of ways since the 13 Colonies and Great Britain parted ways. :shrug:

Strange that so many Europeans feel the need to comment on our society... :wassat1:

Still, I am as strong a supporter of First Amendment rights for everyone as I am of the Second Amendment. You are fully entitled to your opinion. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Maybe so he can have them available for friends and family in case a "call to arms" scenario arises? Perhaps to sell one to people he knows well, but currently don't own any firearms?

People who might seek them someday due to fear of their government's abuses and don't want to leave a paper trail doing so?
Click to expand...
Im not going to deny any of the above, but people enjoy collecting things. Some folks collect stamps, coins, or baseball cards. I collect guns. I own some you can't even buy ammo for. A couple that the sights are graduated in arshini.
 
Bootlace said:
Im not going to deny any of the above, but people enjoy collecting things. Some folks collect stamps, coins, or baseball cards. I collect guns. I own some you can't even buy ammo for. A couple that the sights are graduated in arshini.
Click to expand...

I was responding to a snide post meant to judge your statement and deride it. My response was never meant to limit the motivations in purchasing any firearms.

People hunt, sport-shoot, collect, etc. All valid additional reasons for a right to keep and bear arms.
 
jet57 said:
The assault weapons ban is getting closer and closer, and it really is a shame that the do nothing congress is ushering it in.
Click to expand...

You could have a massacre once a month for a year and the butt wipes who control Congress from the NRA headquarters still would not agree to ever re-insitiute the old ban on these weapons.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I was responding to a snide post meant to judge your statement and deride it. My response was never meant to limit the motivations in purchasing any firearms.

People hunt, sport-shoot, collect, etc. All valid additional reasons for a right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

I don't take your post the wrong way. And many thanks.
 
flogger said:
If that is so then thats a deeply disturbing mindset to have
Click to expand...

I think worshiping a queen and her royal family is disturbing. Yet I'm not actively telling you to get rid of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom