• 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!

If the 2nd Amendment goes away....

Do guns become illegal to own if the 2nd is abolished?


  • Total voters
    43
No reason to repeat yourself, or do you stutter? Do I now have to repeat my previous response to you? As for being above the law, the "law" itself is what's being questioned here, isn't it?

But please don't respond, I've had enough of your wonderful thoughts for one day.

Once again, your opinion on the law does not mean you get to choose whether or not to follow it. I’m sure criminals think the law against, say, armed robbery is stupid; that doesn’t make them not a criminal when they choose to violate said law.
 
Quite the argument by ridicule. The right to self defense by the best means available. Nothing more, nothing less.

The idea that a creator gives a damn about guns is ridiculous in the first place. Furthermore, considering that “right” didn’t exist across 99% of the globe, arguing that it is “God given” is even more dumb.
 
Once again, your opinion on the law does not mean you get to choose whether or not to follow it. I’m sure criminals think the law against, say, armed robbery is stupid; that doesn’t make them not a criminal when they choose to violate said law.

Bye now. You can now go and say you won, that you beat me etc. I just can't continue to argue with stupid.
 
Bye now. You can now go and say you won, that you beat me etc. I just can't continue to argue with stupid.

Considering how dumb the position you’ve created is, the irony is truly amusing to behold.
 
The idea that a creator gives a damn about guns is ridiculous in the first place. Furthermore, considering that “right” didn’t exist across 99% of the globe, arguing that it is “God given” is even more dumb.

Guns are just the best method available. The right, as such, is rooted in self defense and that's nothing new, the term through force of arms goes back to Justinian in the 5th century. Its the idea that a man is free to defend himself by the best means at hand. Arms has changed down the centuries but try out the idea that a person is forbidden to defend themselves from attack. Does it seem like a natural state or is the opposite true, that a person should be able to defend themselves?
 
Guns are just the best method available. The right, as such, is rooted in self defense and that's nothing new, the term through force of arms goes back to Justinian in the 5th century. Its the idea that a man is free to defend himself by the best means at hand. Arms has changed down the centuries but try out the idea that a person is forbidden to defend themselves from attack. Does it seem like a natural state or is the opposite true, that a person should be able to defend themselves?

Oh really? Throughout history if peasants tried to defend themselves by force of arms if they were lucky they “only” got bloodily crushed. The idea that you have a “right” to defend yourself is not in any way, shape or form as universal as you seem to think.

Actually, throughout history that’s exactly right—-people were just supposed to sit there and take it. It’s only the nobility who had any sort of “right” to resist.
 
First of all, when a precedent is set, and then followed, it does no good to complain about the goverment following a course of action that the American people showed they approved of in the past.

Secondly, it’s not “hysterical” to remember that the American people were directly responsible for destroying a treaty out of sheer greed.

Thirdly, when one listens to the screams about “armed revolution” and “shooting person X” and “murdering person Y” that result from talking about any sort of gun control, one wonders just how much those who have appointed themselves “defenders of the constitution” actually care about that document.
Surely you would admit there are just as many extremist leftist gun control voices as those extrem supporters of the Constitution.

Let me ask you a simple and straightforward historical examination question. If you lived in the newly formed US 240 years ago would you have owned slaves?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oh really? Throughout history if peasants tried to defend themselves by force of arms if they were lucky they “only” got bloodily crushed. The idea that you have a “right” to defend yourself is not in any way, shape or form as universal as you seem to think.

Actually, throughout history that’s exactly right—-people were just supposed to sit there and take it. It’s only the nobility who had any sort of “right” to resist.

And you are misguided enough to want to go back to that. Examine the idea, were those people free? Was the rule over them legitimate? Or was it through force? If they were free, didn't they have the right to defense?

The right is universal to people that are free to make the choice.
 
And you are misguided enough to want to go back to that. Examine the idea, were those people free? Was the rule over them legitimate? Or was it through force? If they were free, didn't they have the right to defense?

The right is universal to people that are free to make the choice.
Rights are made by men.
 
the court has already recognized the RIGHT to bear arms, how can a law ban arms stand if the court has already ruled its a right.

the 2nd amendment is not granting you anything, its only stating that a right existed before the constitution was ever written, and the court recognizes that as a fact.

The court recognizes that the 2nd amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to bear arms, should the 2nd amendment be repealed then there is nothing to stop the government from banning them.
 
Your opinion of what laws are “fair” or “not fair” is irrelevant. The law is the law. You don’t get to pick and choose which laws you want to follow.

Out curiosity, is Chicago a "sanctuary city"?
 
the 2nd is a two part amendment, 1. first part ,the militia will not be subject to laws of the federal government, but only its organizing in ranks, structure, and supply. 2. the right of the people to bear arms

that federal law is not exercised by the federal government but the states government on matters of the militia.

the u.s. federal government in the time of founders cannot use the militia of states unless if gets the states permission FIRST.

THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD NOT USE THE MILITIA for STATES FOR REBELLION UNTIL 1861 AND IT COULD NOT USE THEM FOR INSURRECTION UNTIL 1869




the ruling is a recognizing of a right that it exist in the people.

how do you un- recognize something?

Here is a link to the ruling. Notice how often "2nd amendment" is written in it. It's completely based upon the 2nd amendment. If the 2nd amendment is repealed. The ruling no longer has a basis.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/
 
no they are not, no right in the u.s. has been created by the constitution or code.

Yep all rights are made by men. Natural rights are a belief system....but in fact they have no meaning unless codified in law
 
The court recognizes that the 2nd amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to bear arms, should the 2nd amendment be repealed then there is nothing to stop the government from banning them.

the court has recognized it as a right.

repealing the 2nd, does not repeal a right
 
And yet, the “right” to self defense is little more than a privilege in itself because again, if you defended yourself against the wrong people, the government would wipe your whole village off the map.

The peasentry certainly didn’t have any sort of “right” like that.

Pretending that the “right” to bear arms stems from God or a higher power as so many do is ludicrous, and what the world thinks is very relevant.

A situation which could always change depending on the will of the American people.

privileges are created by code, rights are not part of code, but unwritten law.
 
Back
Top Bottom