• 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 you could abolish the 2nd Amendment, would you?

If you could abolish the 2nd Amendment, would you?

  • Total voters
    83
Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,244
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Now, this doesn't mean people couldn't OWN guns, it would just remove the 2nd Amendment. This would greatly free up the state, local and federal systems to more tailor and regulate firearms.

Would you pursue this path? If so/not so, why?

REGULATED* ARGH typo to the fail.
 
The military reform down too smaller sum the U.S. need my point of view too GOP.
 
One said:
The military reform down too smaller sum the U.S. need my point of view too GOP.
Click to expand...

I could not have stated it better...........drops mike!
 
No, but would greatly appreciate the SCOTUS clarifying that "shall not be infringed" should be interpreted as "shall not be abridged or denied".

States should not be free to make a constitutional right into a crime, just as a marriage in one state must be honored in all of them, state gun laws should be made to exempt those "just passing through" from being charged with failing to comply with any goofy gun license requirements, specific gun type bans or magazine capacity limits not imposed by federal law.

Imagine the chaos if driving state to state involved complying with different vehicle specifications and licensing requirements in each state and violating those ever changing regulations could get your property seized or get you charged with a crime.
 
Renae said:
Now, this doesn't mean people couldn't OWN guns, it would just remove the 2nd Amendment. This would greatly free up the state, local and federal systems to more tailor and regulate firearms.

Would you pursue this path? If so/not so, why?

REGULATED* ARGH typo to the fail.
Click to expand...

Trump or the GOP could force down size in Armed Forces and then leave NATO too.
 
Renae said:
Now, this doesn't mean people couldn't OWN guns, it would just remove the 2nd Amendment. This would greatly free up the state, local and federal systems to more tailor and regulate firearms.

Would you pursue this path? If so/not so, why?

REGULATED* ARGH typo to the fail.
Click to expand...
Leave it as is.
 
One cannot abolish the 2nd. One could destroy the paper, the laws and even the country, but one cannot destroy a natural right. One day, people would again understand their basic human agreements, made in flesh and blood among each other as equals before the law, are not subject to authority.

Even if one could un-enlighten the world, it would become enlightened again.
 
One said:
Trump or the GOP could force down size in Armed Forces and then leave NATO too.
Click to expand...

wtf does that have to do with the OP? Get the **** out of my poll thread with this ****.
 
Renae said:
Now, this doesn't mean people couldn't OWN guns, it would just remove the 2nd Amendment. This would greatly free up the state, local and federal systems to more tailor and regulate firearms.

Would you pursue this path? If so/not so, why?

REGULATED* ARGH typo to the fail.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to appease the Anti-Federalists. Some of them apparently knew that future politics would require extra protection from the less educated.
 
Renae said:
wtf does that have to do with the OP? Get the **** out of my poll thread with this ****.
Click to expand...

Plans of view from GOP could happens 2018-2020.
 
American said:
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to appease the Anti-Federalists. Some of them apparently knew that future politics would require extra protection from the less educated.
Click to expand...

I'm fully on your side on this. I am merely having a discussion, a "what if you could" scenario to spark thoughtful discussion.
 
One said:
Plans of view from GOP could happens 2018-2020.
Click to expand...

That's interesting, we aren't talking about the GOP, Trump or 2018-2020. This is about a hypothetical situation where you, One, could revoke the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.
 
Bullseye said:
Leave it as is.
Click to expand...

I want the second to be enforced as intended-in conjunction with the tenth and the commerce clause meaning other than on federal bases or installations, the federal government has no power whatsoever to restrict what sort of small arms private citizens can own or use in their home states.
 
I am so far unclear in 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.
 
Renae said:
Now, this doesn't mean people couldn't OWN guns, it would just remove the 2nd Amendment. This would greatly free up the state, local and federal systems to more tailor and regulate firearms.

Would you pursue this path? If so/not so, why?

REGULATED* ARGH typo to the fail.
Click to expand...

I am fundamentally opposed to any changes to the constitution, and even moreso in cases that would remove rights, so the answer as you phrased it is no. However, if I was designing a constitution for a new country, I would not include a second amendment type section to that constitution. I think fundamentally protected rights should be limited to important stuff, not compensating for small penis type stuff. Does not mean my hypothetical new country would outlaw guns, just that it would not be a right.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
No, but would greatly appreciate the SCOTUS clarifying that "shall not be infringed" should be interpreted as "shall not be abridged or denied".

States should not be free to make a constitutional right into a crime, just as a marriage in one state must be honored in all of them, state gun laws should be made to exempt those "just passing through" from being charged with failing to comply with any goofy gun license requirements, specific gun type bans or magazine capacity limits not imposed by federal law.

Imagine the chaos if driving state to state involved complying with different vehicle specifications and licensing requirements in each state and violating those ever changing regulations could get your property seized or get you charged with a crime.
Click to expand...

That raises the question of how it is despite the fact that it is not a constitutional right to drive a car that one can drive through many states without having to meet differing " goofy" laws? If states can reach consensus with cars they why not with guns?
 
ecofarm said:
One cannot abolish the 2nd. One could destroy the paper, the laws and even the country, but one cannot destroy a natural right. One day, people would again understand their basic human agreements, made in flesh and blood among each other as equals before the law, are not subject to authority.

Even if one could un-enlighten the world, it would become enlightened again.
Click to expand...

How is owning a gun a natural right? What is a natural right?
 
Gun control simply does not work. The murder rate went up a few years after the gun control act of 1968 was passed.
 
Redress said:
I am fundamentally opposed to any changes to the constitution, and even moreso in cases that would remove rights, so the answer as you phrased it is no. However, if I was designing a constitution for a new country, I would not include a second amendment type section to that constitution. I think fundamentally protected rights should be limited to important stuff, not compensating for small penis type stuff. Does not mean my hypothetical new country would outlaw guns, just that it would not be a right.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the answer. I personally am sadden you had to toss the small penis line in there. I'm afraid that just discounted your entire post and relegated what could have been an interesting discussion to the trash bin.
Pity.
 
soylentgreen said:
That raises the question of how it is despite the fact that it is not a constitutional right to drive a car that one can drive through many states without having to meet differing " goofy" laws? If states can reach consensus with cars they why not with guns?
Click to expand...

My best guess is that the federal government has not yet threatened to withhold funds for not doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom