• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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...

Rucker61 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sure, there are plenty of people that want to ban guns, I'm not one of them and I never used the word ban.
Rucker61 said:
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.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. Why are we trying to apply a 200+ year old document to current technology, guns, computers or otherwise. Wouldn't it make more sense to update the legislation to keep up with the technology?
Rucker61 said:
Democrats keep suggesting gun bans. What is your opinion is reasonable firearm ownership?
Click to expand...
My opinion is there is a middle ground that allows for responsible gun owners to exist and somehow limit the gun violence that is wholly unique to this country.
 
Rucker61 said:
No, it isn't true. It's your opinion not supported by data, and it adds nothing to civil debate.
Click to expand...
ok ok I bow down to your superior debating tactics
download.webp
 
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...
OK I know that's an IF but they weren't, so it's hard to say for sure. But there was clothing and ropes and cast iron cookware and I don't recall seeing anything in the BoRs about any of that.
 
zsu2357 said:
Hey I showed imagination. Kinda. Which is better than a fig newton of someones imagination.
Click to expand...
I was responding to someone with no imagination, not you ;)
 
zsu2357 said:
Hey you're right because us so called "gun nuts" don't have ridiculous thoughts because we THINK first, unlike others.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. No one on the Far Right thinks anymore. Why else would they be filling up ICU's well over a year after everyone else figured out what to do to avoid dying from COVID?
 
calamity said:
I doubt it. No one on the Far Right thinks anymore. Why else would they be filling up ICU's well over a year after everyone else figured out what to do to avoid dying from COVID?
Click to expand...
well the far right doesn't include any of the posters thrashing the nonsense you post. Trying to whine about COVID on a gun thread is not exactly the sign of critical thinking either. BTW which group has the lowest rate of vaccinations?
 
leftofcenter said:
Sure, there are plenty of people that want to ban guns, I'm not one of them and I never used the word ban.

My point exactly. Why are we trying to apply a 200+ year old document to current technology, guns, computers or otherwise. Wouldn't it make more sense to update the legislation to keep up with the technology?

My opinion is there is a middle ground that allows for responsible gun owners to exist and somehow limit the gun violence that is wholly unique to this country.
Click to expand...
what do you propose that is more likely to "limit the gun violence that is wholly unique to this country" than to harass honest gun owners and violate the second amendment?
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...
I was going to try and answer the whole post but why? The last sentence which I highlighted says it all. And by says it all I mean that you sound like a (D) politician saying he's not for banning firearms but actually has a CCW (yeah right) and is very pro gun "BUT" we need reasonable gun laws and as long as they're our laws we are okay with it.
 
TurtleDude said:
what do you propose that is more likely to "limit the gun violence that is wholly unique to this country" than to harass honest gun owners and violate the second amendment?
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not considering harassing honest gun owners or violating the second amendment but thanks for lumping me in with the far left...

I think the fact that you say "violate the second amendment" gets to the heart of my post. Why is this amendment looked at as sacrosanct? Is it beyond thought that somehow we might need to move past the 2nd amendment and update our thought process to reflect what is happening in our country now, today?
 
leftofcenter said:
My point exactly. Why are we trying to apply a 200+ year old document to current technology, guns, computers or otherwise. Wouldn't it make more sense to update the legislation to keep up with the technology?
Click to expand...
What are you suggesting?

What changes would you make to the 2nd to "keep up with technology"?
What changes would you make to the 1st to "keep up with technology"?
What changes would you make to the 4th to "keep up with technology"?
 
leftofcenter said:
Well, I'm not considering harassing honest gun owners or violating the second amendment but thanks for lumping me in with the far left...
Click to expand...
Do you want to restrict classes of firearms currently protected by the Second?
leftofcenter said:
I think the fact that you say "violate the second amendment" gets to the heart of my post. Why is this amendment looked at as sacrosanct? Is it beyond thought that somehow we might need to move past the 2nd amendment and update our thought process to reflect what is happening in our country now, today?
Click to expand...
It's not sacrosanct, but how come "move past" never means "repeal or adapt in keeping with Article V of the Constitution"?

What changes do you want made?
 
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...
Interesting analogy.

In a way this already exists.

Very few, even on the right, advocate for unrestricted 2nd amendment rights; aside from a few extremist loons.

I guess the comparison would be cars that are not street legal in America, of which I expect there are a few...just like weapons.

Some are simply to dangerous.
 
Indlib said:
Interesting analogy.

In a way this already exists.

Very few, even on the right, advocate for unrestricted 2nd amendment rights; aside from a few extremist loons.

I guess the comparison would be cars that are not street legal in America, of which I expect there are a few...just like weapons.

Some are simply to dangerous.
Click to expand...
What is "too dangerous" with regards to firearms? Is that quantifiable, or just a feeling?
 
leftofcenter said:
Well, I'm not considering harassing honest gun owners or violating the second amendment but thanks for lumping me in with the far left...

I think the fact that you say "violate the second amendment" gets to the heart of my post. Why is this amendment looked at as sacrosanct? Is it beyond thought that somehow we might need to move past the 2nd amendment and update our thought process to reflect what is happening in our country now, today?
Click to expand...
so what are those laws you want and tell us how they will work.
 
Indlib said:
Interesting analogy.

In a way this already exists.

Very few, even on the right, advocate for unrestricted 2nd amendment rights; aside from a few extremist loons.

I guess the comparison would be cars that are not street legal in America, of which I expect there are a few...just like weapons.

Some are simply to dangerous.
Click to expand...
stuff that are designed to destroy an area, rather than engage an individual target for example. Like claymore mines or grenades or mortars. Those are neither in common use or not unusually dangerous. Or in the unadulterated views of the founders, stuff that a citizen would not normally keep and bear even for militia use.

Another way of looking at is is under the equitable notion of Estoppel. If a civilian government issues a type of weapon to its civilian agents for use in a civilian environment, then that weapon is not unusually dangerous and is suitable for other civilians to own in said civilian environment
 
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...
Yet the second is abridged to deny the privilege (can't be a right if you can lose it) to felons. As the constitution specifically forbids.
 
TurtleDude said:
stuff that are designed to destroy an area, rather than engage an individual target for example. Like claymore mines or grenades or mortars. Those are neither in common use or not unusually dangerous. Or in the unadulterated views of the founders, stuff that a citizen would not normally keep and bear even for militia use.

Another way of looking at is is under the equitable notion of Estoppel. If a civilian government issues a type of weapon to its civilian agents for use in a civilian environment, then that weapon is not unusually dangerous and is suitable for other civilians to own in said civilian environment
Click to expand...
Agreed with the caveat that the degree of danger a weapon is can be somewhat subjective person to person.
 
Indlib said:
Agreed with the caveat that the degree of danger a weapon is can be somewhat subjective person to person.
Click to expand...
the founders drew lines between arms, artillery and ordnance. Admittedly, there are modern weapons that blur the line-such as a single user anti tank or anti aircraft missile. But those are worthless for individual self defense-and as Ecofarm correctly notes, are more for national defense. and civilian police don't have anti tank weapons (I know the SS has anti aircraft missiles protecting the white house but that is a special case)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom