• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

Here's a fun thought about the 2nd amendment...

leftofcenter

leftofcenter

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2021
Messages
175
Reaction score
128
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Obviously cars weren't around at the time of our constitution's creation, but what if they were? "A mobile society, being necessary to the prosperity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and operate cars shall not be infringed"

Would there be a group of people fanatically defending people's right to own them? Fiercely trying to defeat any attempt at government regulation of making them safer? Would they protest needing a license to operate one? Would they be opposed to the states request that every transaction be recorded and registered used or new?

Just curious...
 
leftofcenter said:
Obviously cars weren't around at the time of our constitution's creation, but what if they were? "A mobile society, being necessary to the prosperity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and operate cars shall not be infringed"

Would there be a group of people fanatically defending people's right to own them? Fiercely trying to defeat any attempt at government regulation of making them safer? Would they protest needing a license to operate one? Would they be opposed to the states request that every transaction be recorded and registered used or new?

Just curious...
Click to expand...
Speaking of fanatically, this thread is fanatically stupid.
 
leftofcenter said:
Obviously cars weren't around at the time of our constitution's creation, but what if they were? "A mobile society, being necessary to the prosperity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and operate cars shall not be infringed"

Would there be a group of people fanatically defending people's right to own them? Fiercely trying to defeat any attempt at government regulation of making them safer? Would they protest needing a license to operate one? Would they be opposed to the states request that every transaction be recorded and registered used or new?

Just curious...
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
never post a thread that has anything to do about guns, all you get is grief, you would get less grief about talking about a guy's wife than about guns, because
When-A-Man-Loves-A-Rifle.webp
some things you just don't touch.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
never post a thread that has anything to do about guns, all you get is grief, you would get less grief about talking about a guy's wife than about guns, because
View attachment 67348663
some things you just don't touch.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I know, just couldn't help myself, sometimes I have to let the thoughts out somehow.
 
leftofcenter said:
Yeah... I know, just couldn't help myself, sometimes I have to let the thoughts out somehow.
Click to expand...
no problem letting thoughts out, the trouble is, gun nuts don't have a lot of thoughts ;)
 
OpportunityCost said:
Bad hypotheticals don't further the conversation or discussion, they tend to do the opposite.
Click to expand...
hypotheticals are built on imagination, so you either have it or you don't.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Bad hypotheticals don't further the conversation or discussion, they tend to do the opposite.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don't see any bad hypotheticals though... Automobiles are regulated, registered, licensed, etc. and no one seems to have any problem with it yet somehow the very thought of registering, licensing, regulating guns is beyond discussion or debate? Where's the privacy outrage at having to register your car? Or needing a license to operate one?
 
leftofcenter said:
Sorry, I don't see any bad hypotheticals though... Automobiles are regulated, registered, licensed, etc. and no one seems to have any problem with it yet somehow the very thought of registering, licensing, regulating guns is beyond discussion or debate? Where's the privacy outrage at having to register your car? Or needing a license to operate one?
Click to expand...
We don't license and register cars to prevent crime. No one wants to limit car ownership in general. No one has ever suggested banning cars.

We're more than happy to debate these issues.

What is the purpose behind firearm registration?
Licensing a Constitutionally protected individual right violates the Constitution - see Murdock v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton.
 
Rucker61 said:
We don't license and register cars to prevent crime. No one wants to limit car ownership in general. No one has ever suggested banning cars.

We're more than happy to debate these issues.

What is the purpose behind firearm registration?
Licensing a Constitutionally protected individual right violates the Constitution - see Murdock v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton.
Click to expand...
Just drawing some parallels, that's all and wondering why the outrage when these beliefs are challenged. There are so many things in our lives that are recorded, registered, licensed, documented, etc. etc. by local, state and federal agencies and we have no second thoughts about protesting. Yet... anyone mentions registering gun owners and it brings out the fanatics, lobbyists and everyone else who thinks this will lead to "someone" taking their guns away.

Yes, I was poking the bear a bit but I seriously believe it's short sighted to look at the second amendment like it's written in stone and untouchable. The concept of a firearm was radically different then compared to firearms available today, yet this amendment has not evolved with the changing times and available technology.

To your points though, we may not license and register cars specifically to prevent crime but we do license and regulate them for public safety. And I am not suggesting banning firearms, in fact, I'm not against reasonable firearm ownership at all.
 
leftofcenter said:
Obviously cars weren't around at the time of our constitution's creation, but what if they were? "A mobile society, being necessary to the prosperity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and operate cars shall not be infringed"

Would there be a group of people fanatically defending people's right to own them? Fiercely trying to defeat any attempt at government regulation of making them safer? Would they protest needing a license to operate one? Would they be opposed to the states request that every transaction be recorded and registered used or new?
Click to expand...

Yes to all of those questions. People have the right to own property and to travel, and both of these rights predate the rotten government.

There have been court cases which state the obvious:

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.

Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
Click to expand...

and

The right of a citizen to travel on public highway is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," and the right to "travel," which means the right to go from one place to another, includes the right to start, to go forward on the way, and to stop when the traveler's destination has been reached, and also the right to stop on the way, temporarily, for a legitimate or necessary purpose when that purpose is an immediate incident to travel.

The constitutional right of citizen to travel on public highways may be reasonably regulated by legislative acts in pursuance of police power of state, but the police power cannot justify the enactment of any statute which amounts to an arbitrary and unwarranted interference with or unreasonable restriction on those rights of citizens which are fundamental.

Teche Lines, Inc., v. Danforth, 195 Miss. 226 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Teche Lines, Inc., v. Danforth, 195 Miss. 226, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
Click to expand...

That's about as good as it gets from a government-run court, but the entire problem stems from letting the filthy state own the roads in the first place.
 
leftofcenter said:
Just drawing some parallels, that's all and wondering why the outrage when these beliefs are challenged. There are so many things in our lives that are recorded, registered, licensed, documented, etc. etc. by local, state and federal agencies and we have no second thoughts about protesting. Yet... anyone mentions registering gun owners and it brings out the fanatics, lobbyists and everyone else who thinks this will lead to "someone" taking their guns away.
Click to expand...

The Democrats keep introducing bills with the words "ban". Maybe that's our clue. Gun ownership is unique in that Democrats and gun control advocates want fewer people to exercise that right, and new gun control laws granting new powers to government will be used to restrict access to exercise this protected right.

leftofcenter said:
Yes, I was poking the bear a bit but I seriously believe it's short sighted to look at the second amendment like it's written in stone and untouchable.
Click to expand...
We've seen that it isn't, starting with NFA 1934, where GCAs create powers not actually granted to the government to restrict firearm ownership with arbitrary, capricious laws. Do you really believe that machine guns were restricted because of the actions of Dillinger, Clyde Barrow and Machine Gun Kelly?


leftofcenter said:
The concept of a firearm was radically different then compared to firearms available today, yet this amendment has not evolved with the changing times and available technology.
Click to expand...

The concept of communication and data storage was also vastly different, and modern devices are still protected by the 1st and 4th Amendment. SCOTUS has already addressed this issue.

“The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "

leftofcenter said:
To your points though, we may not license and register cars specifically to prevent crime but we do license and regulate them for public safety. And I am not suggesting banning firearms, in fact, I'm not against reasonable firearm ownership at all.
Click to expand...
Democrats keep suggesting gun bans. What is your opinion is reasonable firearm ownership?
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
no problem letting thoughts out, the trouble is, gun nuts don't have a lot of thoughts ;)
Click to expand...
the bannerrhoid left is invariably dishonest and rarely has a clue about the things they want to ban
 
TurtleDude said:
the bannerrhoid left is invariably dishonest and rarely has a clue about the things they want to ban
Click to expand...
notice: the difference between a witty reply and a defensive reply ;)
 
Rucker61 said:
This "gun nuts don't have a lot of thoughts" isn't witty, it's childish. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.
Click to expand...
but it's true, witty or otherwise :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom