• 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!

Is there anyone here that believes the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment so that America would be the shooting gallery it is today?

PIPEWRENCH said:
Only fools.

The second amendment was never intended to support criminal behavior. Only someone with the IQ of a brick believes such insanity.
Click to expand...
It may never have been intended to be used that way...but it does.
 
mrjurrs said:
It may never have been intended to be used that way...but it does.
Click to expand...
Well so does the freedom of speech and your fourth amendment.

If police could just search you at any time they probably catch more criminals you don't need to be securing your papers what are you hiding?
 
CLAX1911 said:
What does income level have to do with violence?
Click to expand...
It eliminates those countries that are operating without a functional government and prevents gun zealots from saying...'what about Gaza or Mali'.
 
rahl said:
Your thread question is based on a falsehood. America is not the most violent nation.
Click to expand...
?
Perhaps you can quote me saying what you claim I said. If you can't, I expect that you will apologize to me for misquoting me.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well so does the freedom of speech and your fourth amendment.

If police could just search you at any time they probably catch more criminals you don't need to be securing your papers what are you hiding?
Click to expand...
False claim on freedom of speech.

How many people does the fourth amendment kill each year?
 
mrjurrs said:
It eliminates those countries that are operating without a functional government and prevents gun zealots from saying...'what about Gaza or Mali'.
Click to expand...
Well I think it's specifically to make the comparison eurocentric. Essentially you're cherry-picking data.

You wouldn't need to do that if you were honest.

So the reason why places like Finland and Sweden and Denmark have fewer murders using guns not fewer murders. It's because they have fewer guns. We already have the guns if we adopt their laws probably increase Carnage because now the criminal element is empowered and the non criminal is weakened.

It's the same phenomenon as to why you probably see a lot more people dying from the wounds from swords in the medieval period.

So the only thing you've observed here with this data is that there are more privately owned guns in the US congratulations on pointing out the obvious.
 
mrjurrs said:
False claim on freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
So you can't use your speech to encourage violence?
mrjurrs said:
How many people does the fourth amendment kill each year?
Click to expand...
Every single person that needs to be searched but can't be because there's no established reason so sky's the limit.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well I think it's specifically to make the comparison eurocentric. Essentially you're cherry-picking data.

You wouldn't need to do that if you were honest.

So the reason why places like Finland and Sweden and Denmark have fewer murders using guns not fewer murders. It's because they have fewer guns. We already have the guns if we adopt their laws probably increase Carnage because now the criminal element is empowered and the non criminal is weakened.

It's the same phenomenon as to why you probably see a lot more people dying from the wounds from swords in the medieval period.

So the only thing you've observed here with this data is that there are more privately owned guns in the US congratulations on pointing out the obvious.
Click to expand...
Does this work better for you? Now explain it.
1750271433242.webp
 
devildavid said:
A motor vehicle is not so portable as to be used on the 10th floor of a high rise apartment building against humans. Reality.
Click to expand...

Sure. You can qualify criteria as narrowly as you want and make up all sorts of hypotheticals. So can I.

A motor vehicle is not only portable, it can be used as transportation to get you 200 miles to the place you decided to use its lethal power against humans. Try that with your Glock.

Point was, my motor vehicle fit the description that poster provided. Your additions and fabrications had no effect on that.
 
Lursa said:
No.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

IMO, there must be a 3 branch solution. Congress to write common sense gun laws (no battlefield weapons in private possession), Executive to issue Executive orders that drive lower personal possession of firearms, Courts to recognize that even individual rights are limited, and not all persons in the US should have the right to personal ownership of firearms.
 
devildavid said:
So it sounds like guns aren’t really needed at all, statistically speaking.
Click to expand...

Any person only needs one shoe...statistically speaking.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Seems like we have a huge problem with suicide and you're trying to ignore it to focus on firearms.

Why is that?
Click to expand...
Don't tell me what I'm focusing on. Everything I suggest would lower suicide numbers.
 
RF667799 said:
Sure. You can qualify criteria as narrowly as you want and make up all sorts of hypotheticals. So can I.
Click to expand...
It's interesting how methods of suicide and murder stop mattering when it suggests guns are not the culprit.
RF667799 said:
A motor vehicle is not only portable, it can be used as transportation to get you 200 miles to the place you decided to use its lethal power against humans. Try that with your Glock.
Click to expand...

RF667799 said:
Point was, my motor vehicle fit the description that poster provided. Your additions and fabrications had no effect on that.
Click to expand...
I think the depth of this person's argument is "guns is a bad."
 
mrjurrs said:
Answer the question.
Click to expand...
Here is your post.

mrjurrs said:
Thanks to @bongsaway for the idea of the format...

Whether you are a gun zealot or would prefer no guns in America, do you believe that the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment anticipating that America would become the most violent developed country in the world?

Congress won't do anything. The courts apparently never understood what a comma means in a phrase. Our only hope for meaningful gun safety in America appears to be in a Democrat President that is willing to grab powers denied to the Executive by law and use them.
Click to expand...
Since your question is a lie, there is no way to answer it to your satisfaction. It is along the lines of asking you "when did you stop beating your wife?"
 
Lursa said:
So should it be repealed? Or amended? What are your ideas?
Click to expand...

mrjurrs said:
Thank you.

IMO, there must be a 3 branch solution. Congress to write common sense gun laws (no battlefield weapons in private possession), Executive to issue Executive orders that drive lower personal possession of firearms, Courts to recognize that even individual rights are limited, and not all persons in the US should have the right to personal ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...

OK. "I" support having the 2A so I disagree with all of those 🤷 I believe in its original premise. I believe in a right to privately own firearms and to have common sense regulation..."no right is absolute." And we do have many "common sense restrictions" yet they are not always enforced consistently or at all. We can do more but IMO the firearms are not the real problem. Resolve the issues and much of the danger goes away.

In support of the practical side: prohibition does not work. See: Prohibition, War on Drugs. It's a matter of choice IMO, as only each person/family knows their risks and circumstances...it's unconscionable IMO at this point to deny people protection they believe they need, and placed at a disadvantage by strangers/the govt. Do they know better than the individuals? Are firearms' owner's/families lives worth less than those that choose not to be armed? Firearms wont be going anywhere in your scenario...they'll just end up concentrated in 2 groups: cops and criminals. And I'm not that thrilled with LE having them anymore either.

Similar to abortion: my bodily autonomy & life are protected by the Const and it's my choice. Only that woman knows her risks, circumstances, needs. Should strangers dictate what she needs for her health, life, future? Should they be entitled to decide her "risks" for her? And in both cases...the women and individuals/families also accept the consequences of their decisions. Right?
 
Last edited:
BabaVoss said:
You seem to believe that your freedom is limitless. If you decide you "need" something, then no one has any right to stand in your way?
Click to expand...

You don't have a good reason to deprive 100 million people of something they use peacefully. That less than .006% of the population doesn't use that item peacefully, is not a good reason to deprive the other 99.994% of their Constitutional rights and civil liberties. Go find another outlet for your authoritarian tendencies.
 
mrjurrs said:
?
Perhaps you can quote me saying what you claim I said. If you can't, I expect that you will apologize to me for misquoting me.
Click to expand...
The highlighted portion of your post in my very first post in this thread you claimed the US was the most violent nation. I pointed out that is false.
 
mrjurrs said:
Thank you.

IMO, there must be a 3 branch solution. Congress to write common sense gun laws (no battlefield weapons in private possession), Executive to issue Executive orders that drive lower personal possession of firearms, Courts to recognize that even individual rights are limited, and not all persons in the US should have the right to personal ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...
Dude, the US government will ship a "battlefield weapon" right to my home.
 
mrjurrs said:
It eliminates those countries that are operating without a functional government and prevents gun zealots from saying...'what about Gaza or Mali'.
Click to expand...
That is called cherry picking lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom