• 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!

Settling the 2nd amendment once and for all

nvflash said:
They got their asses kicked, they didn't win, they pulled out because winning was more than their homelands was willing to pay.

Americans are spoiled in our comforts and wealth, we have no stomach for a protracted civil war fought with guerilla tactics.
Click to expand...

The VC certainly did get its ass kicked, as did the Mujahideen on numerous occasions. The North Vietnamese
literally had to move ever increasing numbers of professional troops south in order to keep the VC in the field.

Which makes your claims about what a “nightmare” it would be rather hilarious. Gun obsessives are just as spoiled as every other American; no American force in the last fifty years has fought with anything other than absolutely air superiority to support them.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The VC certainly did get its ass kicked, as did the Mujahideen on numerous occasions. The North Vietnamese
literally had to move ever increasing numbers of professional troops south in order to keep the VC in the field.

Which makes your claims about what a “nightmare” it would be rather hilarious. Gun obsessives are just as spoiled as every other American; no American force in the last fifty years has fought with anything other than absolutely air superiority to support them.
Click to expand...
You keep on thinking it's going to be some line and column type civil war, when in reality all that would need to be done is to inconvenience enough people that they will force the acceptance of defeat.
 
nvflash said:
You keep on thinking it's going to be some line and column type civil war, when in reality all that would need to be done is to inconvenience enough people that they will force the acceptance of defeat.
Click to expand...

Seriously inconveniencing millions of people is not an easy task.

In reality, anyone who thinks the US government was just roll over is delusional.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Seriously inconveniencing millions of people is not an easy task.

In reality, anyone who thinks the US government was just roll over is delusional.
Click to expand...
The US government is weak, it has no power the people don't consent to, it would only take 3% of the people to force them into surrender.

Most people in the US just want to continue to live in the comforts their wealth brings without being inconvenienced.
 
nvflash said:
The US government is weak, it has no power the people don't consent to, it would only take 3% of the people to force them into surrender.
Click to expand...

A lot more than “3 percent” of southerners supported Jim Crow, but the US government still smashed them flat. Anyone who thinks it is “weak” is, again, not living in the real world.
 
Tigerace117 said:
A lot more than “3 percent” of southerners supported Jim Crow, but the US government still smashed them flat. Anyone who thinks it is “weak” is, again, not living in the real world.
Click to expand...
You and your ilk can't even get one gun control measure passed the 60 votes needed in the Senate, so you are a long way from us needing to do anything we haven't already done to stop you.

Your pipe dream of disarming the people will never come to pass.
 
Shir said:
Only problem there is the Republicans are closer to being able to pull off an amendment for this than the Democrats are for striking the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS is not the answer, since SCOTUS can overturn itself. The only way to solve this, is for the 2nd amendment to be struck from the Constitution, or for the 2nd amendment to be rewritten with more clarity so it no longer can be taken to SCOTUS, in my opinion. Either way will require a group to have, currently, 38 state legislature bodies to ratify such a proposal after it has been through Congress. I believe at present the Republicans can start the process and even force Congress to do its part, through SCOTUS, but still lack a state or two to pull off the ratification. Even if they think they have enough for ratification, it being such a bombshell political item, I feel they would call into question if they had enough strength even with 38 state legislative bodies, as some of those are split states.

...
Click to expand...
It does not matter which party proposes an amendment, it will never pass Congress. There are literally dozens of proposed amendments to the US Constitution in every Session of Congress. The last one that came close to passing Congress was the Balanced Budget Amendment in July 1996. It failed to get a two-thirds majority in the Senate by one vote. Since then there has not been a single proposed amendment to reach the floor for a vote.

It also does not matter what a newly proposed amendment might say. If it acknowledges any individual right whatsoever, leftist filth (a.k.a. the Democratic Party) with oppose it vehemently, just as they have with the existing Second Amendment. They know that they can never achieve their goal of leftist totalitarianism while the people are armed.

It is also funny that you would cite Great Britain, since that was the origin of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment embodies the individual right of all freemen to keep and bear arms that was recognized by England in 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta also recognized our individual right to know the charges laid against us, and our right to a quick and speedy trial. Which is where the Sixth Amendment originates.

Obviously Great Britain has changed significantly with regard to the recognition of individual rights over the last two centuries. While the US continues to preserve that ancient recognition of our individual right to keep and bear arms.
 
nvflash said:
You and your ilk can't even get one gun control measure passed the 60 votes needed in the Senate, so you are a long way from us needing to do anything we haven't already done to stop you.

Your pipe dream of disarming the people will never come to pass.
Click to expand...

Your Red Dawn fantasies are a bad joke. Keep squealing about how “weak” you think the government is.....it just goes to show how clueless you lot are.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Your Red Dawn fantasies are a bad joke. Keep squealing about how “weak” you think the government is.....it just goes to show how clueless you lot are.
Click to expand...
The government is so weak, the very seat of power was overrun by people wielding flagpoles.
 
nvflash said:
The government is so weak, the very seat of power was overrun by people wielding flagpoles.
Click to expand...

Who failed miserably to accomplish their goal of keeping their cult leader in power, and who are now going to be rotting in jail for a very long time.
 
Tbird said:
Wanna freaken bet!!!
Click to expand...

Yes, on both points:

1. the people WERE armed they could STILL not fight against an oppressive government

2. British colonial rule was no more "oppressive", than the rule of the infant USA.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Are you for real.
Click to expand...

Yes

PIPEWRENCH said:
These colonist went up against a super power that they had almost no chance of beating for no good reason.
Click to expand...

The British empire in the 18th century was not a "super-power"
It had a very weak army by continental European standards and at the time was shown to be 2nd best to the pre-Revolution French navy

The same French navy that supported the infant USA - which is why France is America's oldest ally

PIPEWRENCH said:
They lost most of the battles and only barely won the war just so they could set up an oppressive government just like the one they fought to overthrow. Unbelievable. You don't really expect anyone to believe such nonsense.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the infant US government was oppressive, I said it was "no more oppressive than British colonial rule"

They fought to overthrow British rule because they were motivated by nationalist cries from the middle classes who saw an opportunity to make more $$$
Most colonists paid no stamp tax to the British crown
And post war, only about 5% of the people had suffrage

Just like southern dirt farmers fought America's bloodiest war in support of the Southern middle class, who sought to protect their wealth with the preservation of slavery
Yet those dirt farmers had no slaves.
They fought for the same reason as the colonial minutemen: nationalistic calls for someone else's $$$
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Doesn't mean they might need it now or in the future. Police don't have a Constitutional right to protect you, but each citizen has that right to protect themselves.
Click to expand...
There is only one reason given for the right to keep and bear arms: WAR. Not self defense, but NATIONAL defense. "A well-regulated militia, for the security of a free state . . ."
 
Patriotic Voter said:
There is only one reason given for the right to keep and bear arms: WAR. Not self defense, but NATIONAL defense. "A well-regulated militia, for the security of a free state . . ."
Click to expand...
Already covered that many times from the Militia act to the Supreme Court decision DC vs Heller.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
There is only one reason given for the right to keep and bear arms: WAR. Not self defense, but NATIONAL defense. "A well-regulated militia, for the security of a free state . . ."
Click to expand...
War is not the only threat to the security of a free state.
 
Rich2018 said:
War is not the only threat to the security of a free state.
Click to expand...
You are right about that. Just look at the devastation the left has done to our economy during the pandemic in a bid to regain power.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
You are right about that. Just look at the devastation the left has done to our economy during the pandemic in a bid to regain power.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump can not be said to be on the left

Most of the pandemic happened under his administration

Under president Biden, America is recovering...business are re-opening, vaccines are available to everyone who wants it, and the number of COVID cases is way down as are deaths

After a year of bungling and mismanagement, the current president shows Trump up for the incompetent clown he was

And it's not just me, Biden approval rating is between 52-53%, whilst Trump, even at his most popular, never broke 50%.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
So you can post a link to a totally unbiased website to prove it. I will wait.
Click to expand...
Er, um...Supreme Court ruling DC vs Heller AND the Militia act of 1792 is the source I'm using. Unbiased websites have nothing to do with both.
 
Rich2018 said:
War is not the only threat to the security of a free state.
Click to expand...
Why do you think the Second Amendment specifies only "the security of a free state" as the reason people have the right to keep and bear arms? Self defense is NOT in there. Only national defense is.
 
Patriotic Voter said:
Why do you think the Second Amendment specifies only "the security of a free state" as the reason people have the right to keep and bear arms? Self defense is NOT in there. Only national defense is.
Click to expand...

Again, DC vs Heller, use of firearms outside of the militia is permitted for lawful purposes, such as self defence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom