• 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!

Something I noticed about a lot of adamant anti-2nd amendment folks.

jamesrage said:
If you support licenses/permits,insurance requirements, firearm registrations, waiting periods, firearm restrictions and anything else that infringes on the 2nd amendment then you are anti-2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
Maybe in the rabid RWNJ mind. Out here in reality that's just not true.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
Maybe in the rabid RWNJ mind. Out here in reality that's just not true.
Click to expand...
Would a ban on a class of firearms in common use for lawful purposes be Constitutional, given Heller and Caetano?

Would licensing the right to keep and bear arms be Constitutional, given that the right has been affirmed as a Constitutionally protected individual right and the decisions in Murdock v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton?

Can a law infringe on the Second Amendment and still be Constitutional?
 
Rucker61 said:
Do you support any bans on firearms in common use for lawful purposes?

Do you support a test to determine if some gets to exercise the right to kerp and bear arms?

Do you support that a citizen be licensed to be able to exercise the right to keep and bear arms?

Do you believe that the federal government has the enumerated Constitutional authority to impose these?
Click to expand...
No
Yes
Yes
Yes.

Why?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The right WILDLY underestimates how many people on the left want to ban gun ownership. If you need proof of how ridiculous you guys can be about it, just walk into a gun thread on this forum and say something 98% of Americans agree with like :

"I don't think felons should be able to buy machine guns at Walmart"

Then watch as you're relentlessly attacked as a second amendment hating gun grabber. Nuance is completely lost in you guys and many of you view ALL forms of gun control to be anti-second amendment, despite the vast majority of Americans supporting basic gun regulation AND gun rights.


Hilariously, you made my point. Thanks for the example.
Click to expand...
What an idiotic post. Virtually no second amendment supporter thinks felons should be able to machine guns at Walmart.

The fact that you have to make up lies says a lot more about you and the your lack of an actual coherent argument then it said about anyone in the right.

But it is rather typical from what I see from you so there is that.
 
tshade said:
There are no "anti-second amend. folks"........get real
Click to expand...
Funny you say that and yet there are already multiple people in this thread saying they would get rid of the 2nd amendment.

What do you call someone who wants to get rid of an amendment other then someone who is anti that amendment.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
No
Yes
Click to expand...
This is Constitutionally analogous to a literacy test to vote. Do you support a test to exercise any right?
Gateman_Wen said:
Yes
Click to expand...
Both Murdock v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton affirmed that a license to practice a right is unconstitutional. Supporting a license to exercise the right protected by the Constitutional is unconstitutional.
Gateman_Wen said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Please point to the section of the Constitution that enumerates the power to impose these.
 
braindrain said:
Funny you say that and yet there are already multiple people in this thread saying they would get rid of the 2nd amendment.

What do you call someone who wants to get rid of an amendment other then someone who is anti that amendment.
Click to expand...
??????? they are called "change amendment people"
 
tshade said:
??????? they are called "change amendment people"
Click to expand...
Getting rid of is not just changing.
But it’s clear that being honest is not your top priority.
 
Rucker61 said:
Would a ban on a class of firearms in common use for lawful purposes be Constitutional, given Heller and Caetano?
Click to expand...

I just said I wasn't for that.

Would licensing the right to keep and bear arms be Constitutional, given that the right has been affirmed as a Constitutionally protected individual right and the decisions in Murdock v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton?
Click to expand...

Yes, unless you can show me where it says licensing and registration shall not be required.

Can a law infringe on the Second Amendment and still be Constitutional?
Click to expand...

There is nothing that says constitutional rights cannot be regulated. In fact they are all the time. Just as examples to the second amendment Felons can't own firearms, neither can those convicted of domestic violence or mental patients.

This is all well established law that 2A wingnuts tend to ignore.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
I just said I wasn't for that.



Yes, unless you can show me where it says licensing and registration shall not be required.
Click to expand...

That's not the way it works. You have to show how the government has the enumerated power, especially given Murdock v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton, both of which affirmed that licensing a right was unconstitutional.
Gateman_Wen said:
There is nothing that says constitutional rights cannot be regulated. In fact they are all the time. Just as examples to the second amendment Felons can't own firearms, neither can those convicted of domestic violence or mental patients.

This is all well established law that 2A wingnuts tend to ignore.
Click to expand...
Really? We acknowledge the Constitutionality of those restrictions as noted in Heller.

The fact that some restrictions are Constitutional in no way supports the position that any restrictions would be Constitutional.
 
Rucker61 said:
That's not the way it works. You have to show how the government has the enumerated power, especially given Murdock v Pennsylvania and Watchtower v Village of Stratton, both of which affirmed that licensing a right was unconstitutional.

Really? We acknowledge the Constitutionality of those restrictions as noted in Heller.

The fact that some restrictions are Constitutional in no way supports the position that any restrictions would be Constitutional.
Click to expand...
Do you not see the contradiction you just made?
 
Gateman_Wen said:
I just said I wasn't for that.



Yes, unless you can show me where it says licensing and registration shall not be required.



There is nothing that says constitutional rights cannot be regulated. In fact they are all the time. Just as examples to the second amendment Felons can't own firearms, neither can those convicted of domestic violence or mental patients.

This is all well established law that 2A wingnuts tend to ignore.
Click to expand...
I don't know who you are classifying as "wingnuts", but I accept those as being prohibited persons, and want to extend those prohibitions to motor vehicles in a universal manner. You might be surprised at the number of gun control advocates who have joined me in this useful compromise. I think it's like 1 or 0.
 
Rucker61 said:
Why is that the only example you have? You cling to a ludicrous corner case as an example of "what the gun rights advocates want to protect".

Try being honest, not incendiary.

Let's go back to my question: "If someone is in favor of some form gun control that is clearly or even arguably unconstitutional, aren't they by definition anti-Second Amendment?"
Click to expand...
The problem is many on the right and on this forum have a skewed and subjective view of what the second amendment means, they believe it means there should be no regulations of any kind. Even simple background checks on gun purchases are seen as unconstitutional to these nuts. All rights have limits.

braindrain said:
What an idiotic post. Virtually no second amendment supporter thinks felons should be able to machine guns at Walmart.

The fact that you have to make up lies says a lot more about you and the your lack of an actual coherent argument then it said about anyone in the right.

But it is rather typical from what I see from you so there is that.
Click to expand...
Yet here I am being attacked for stating that position. Why did that make you so emotional? Without background checks, what stops a felon from buying the gun? Without limitations on sales of machine guns, what stops anyone from buying them? Yes, many of the nutters here want to get rid of both of those things, like Jamesrage:

jamesrage said:
If someone supported permits/licenses to get an abortion, register every time they got an abortion, had to wait to get an abortion and supports banning abortion after 6 weeks then I am sure that person would be labeled anti-abortion. If someone supported permit/license to attend religious services, register every religious book they owned, by government law had to wait a certain number of days before attending religious services, restricted how many times a month someone can go to religious service and banned certain religions then I am sure that person would be labeled anti-freedom of religion.
Click to expand...
I'll put you down as being for felons buying machine guns at Walmart then, because preventing that would require controlling WHO gets WHAT KIND of gun, which to you is clearly unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
If you support licenses/permits,insurance requirements, firearm registrations, waiting periods, firearm restrictios and anythig else that infringes on the 2nd amendment then you are anti-2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
I don't hold that view. We have licenses and permits surrounding the freedom of speech and I would call anyone for such permits anti 1st amendment. To me, someone who is anti 2nd amendment is someone who wants to ban guns outright or restrict what kind of guns a law abiding citizen can own or carry.
 
Maccabee said:
I don't hold that view. We have licenses and permits surrounding the freedom of speech and I would call anyone for such permits anti 1st amendment. To me, someone who is anti 2nd amendment is someone who wants to ban guns outright or restrict what kind of guns a law abiding citizen can own or carry.
Click to expand...
Those permits and licenses are to use public spaces like roads and parks for the protest. Not for the act of speech itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom