• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

To what extent to you support the 1st and 2nd amendment?

What extent do you support these rights?


  • Total voters
    70
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I said:

"Okay. You've demonstrated you're not capable of understanding that harm can befall from imprudent speech and that persons causing such harm should be subject to both criminal and civil actions."

That's a rather esoteric form of name-calling, I must say. Usually when I have the urge to describe someone as a blank blank, I just fill in the blanks.

You can dress a pig in a silk gown. What do you have? A pig in a silk gown. It matters not how pretty you make an insult, it remains an insult. You may actually think that you are being clever and making people think it is not, but no.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Since you disagree with that assessment, do you in fact agree that harm can come from imprudent yap flapping?

Yes of course harm can come from, "imprudent yap flapping," as you call it. Not all harm is legally actionable though.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If you do agree that harm can come, do you assert that it's still permissible? If the speech is permissible, then the Constitution grants people the freedom to harm others without consequence. Do you think the Constitution does that?

Because of the 1st amendment and several relevant court rulings. The press has even a more wide latitude than the people at large. Remember, if a person is committing crime, and the press exposes it, they are harmed, but it is most certainly not something they can take action legally for.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Clearly you do make that assertion, else you'd be agreeing with me.

I make the assertion that not all harm is actionable and that the Constitution and Courts give the press a VERY wide set of protections.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you.

They do not frustrate me at all. I am not the one trying to claim the Constitution and courts are all wrong and only I am right, as you are doing. The facts are on my side.
 
Che said:
Guns should be curbed to the best of our ability.....

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

"America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)"

"The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993) "

Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)

"The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)"

"American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)"


I'd like you to link to the source of each claim as the link you provided doesn;t back the claims you made.
 
Here is a image that I think is amusing.

shootme.gif
 
Vandeervecken said:
I'd like you to link to the source of each claim as the link you provided doesn;t back the claims you made.

Actually it does. If you look under the claims they have links to center for diesease control.

I don't want to ban guns completely, but I think there's no reason for someone to have an automatic weapon. I also personally think hollow tips should be outlawed.
 
jamesrage said:
Here is a image that I think is amusing.

shootme.gif

I don't really find it amusing. It is too true. The first thing tyrants always do is try and disarm those they wish to tyrannize.
 
Che said:
Actually it does. If you look under the claims they have links to center for diesease control.

I don't want to ban guns completely, but I think there's no reason for someone to have an automatic weapon. I also personally think hollow tips should be outlawed.

I have a rule, if I have opened three new windows and still not found backing for what you are claiming, I don't believe it is there. It most certainly is not there in any usable form to use as a cite of fact.

A bunch of unbacked claims is just so much hooey.

Define "automatic,". I'm also curious as to why you would ban hollow-points? You know they are far less likely, when they miss their intended target as happens, to penetrate walls and hurt innocents.

I use them in my handguns (I use a brand called hydroshock.). My home defense shotgun is loaded with two flechette rounds (will not go through interior walls and get the kid in the next room) followed by 48 alternating sabot slugs and 00 Buckshot shells. Do you think these do less damage than a hollow point round?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If you had an EXPERIENCE with the subject, you'd know perfectly well that people go off their meds, adjust their dosages, and self-medicate all the time without clinical supervision. Funny how you just ignored that part of what I've been saying.

No. I'm not one of the canaries, nor will I be. Lunacy and perfection don't go well together.

Of course I know that. But if you'd bothered to look at the sources provided, you'd realise that even a schizophrenic in the midst of full-blown psychosis is no more dangerous to others than the average male or youth.

I don't know if you're joking or being a dickhead, but stop it before I report your posts.
 
Vandeervecken said:
So in your world the choices are God or careless? Interesting. No range in between? It takes 2 separate acts to vote in the poll, did you not double check the first before performing the second?

What two actions? Click the option, click the submit button. They're generally done in rapid succession and it's easy to get options mixed up. When you're mortal anyway.

Vandeervecken said:
Not in our country, to put them there would require the court hearing.

I meant once they get to the point when they're actually certified as such.
 
I support the 1st totally and completely. I am against all kinds of censorship (with the possible exception of a parent to their child).

I could care less about the 2nd Amendment. I don't own a gun, and never will.
 
vergiss said:
What two actions? Click the option, click the submit button. They're generally done in rapid succession and it's easy to get options mixed up. When you're mortal anyway..

What two actions? You just described them. You click the choice, then you click submit. Most persons double check between those actions. Even most mortal people.

vergiss said:
I meant once they get to the point when they're actually certified as such.

It is the court hearing in which they become certified as such in this nation. A person must have due process of law here before their rights are removed, unlike your nation.
 
Billo_Really said:
I support the 1st totally and completely. I am against all kinds of censorship (with the possible exception of a parent to their child).

I could care less about the 2nd Amendment. I don't own a gun, and never will.

So you have no problem with others having their rights denied becasue you don't care about exercising it? I have no religion, doesn't mean I don't think freedom for others to worship as they choose is very important.
 
Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
So you have no problem with others having their rights denied becasue you don't care about exercising it? I have no religion, doesn't mean I don't think freedom for others to worship as they choose is very important.
What the hell are you talking about? Who is denying who rights?
 
Billo_Really said:
What the hell are you talking about? Who is denying who rights?

You said that you said you could care less about the 2nd amendment. To me that means you do not care if the government breaks it.
 
Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
You said that you said you could care less about the 2nd amendment. To me that means you do not care if the government breaks it.
Just how would government break that Amendment?
 
Billo_Really said:
Just how would government break that Amendment?


lets see-I will call it LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

1) The 1934 NFA
2) The 1968 GCA
3) the 1986 Dem poison pill attachment to the FOPA known as the Hughes Amendment banning the future manufacture of Automatic weapons for civilians
4) The Bush I executive Order on rifle importation
5) THe BRADY BILL
6) The Clinton "assault weapon" Ban

70 years of outcome based rapes of the second amendment due to the FDR intimidated court interpretations of the commerce clause.
 
TurtleDude said:
lets see-I will call it LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

1) The 1934 NFA
2) The 1968 GCA
3) the 1986 Dem poison pill attachment to the FOPA known as the Hughes Amendment banning the future manufacture of Automatic weapons for civilians
4) The Bush I executive Order on rifle importation
5) THe BRADY BILL
6) The Clinton "assault weapon" Ban

70 years of outcome based rapes of the second amendment due to the FDR intimidated court interpretations of the commerce clause.

Lets not forget the federal courts upholding state and local gun bans.
 
Originally posted by Timmyboy:
lets see-I will call it LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

1) The 1934 NFA
2) The 1968 GCA
3) the 1986 Dem poison pill attachment to the FOPA known as the Hughes Amendment banning the future manufacture of Automatic weapons for civilians
4) The Bush I executive Order on rifle importation
5) THe BRADY BILL
6) The Clinton "assault weapon" Ban

70 years of outcome based rapes of the second amendment due to the FDR intimidated court interpretations of the commerce clause.

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Lets not forget the federal courts upholding state and local gun bans.
So what. Why does the average American need to have an assault weapon? I thought the Clinton ban expired. Canada has stricter gun laws and less murders than we do. Why is the 2nd Amendment so important? Militia's with pea-shooters will not stop armored assault vehicles.
 
Billo_Really said:
So what. Why does the average American need to have an assault weapon?

Why does the average American need to be able to say "**** the Draft"?
His right to do so is protected by the 1st.

As far as "assault weapons" go - given that the 2nd is intended to protect weapons suitable for use in the miltia, these are -exactly- the kids of weapons it protects.

I thought the Clinton ban expired.
Much to the chagrin of the liberal left.
Never mind that it didnt actually ban anything...

Canada has stricter gun laws and less murders than we do.
Take away all the gun murders, and our murder rate is still higher than Canada's. Thus, our problem isnt the guns, and their solution isnt stricter gun laws.

In any event, it is absolutely proveable that more guns do not = more gun deaths.


Why is the 2nd Amendment so important? Militia's with pea-shooters will not stop armored assault vehicles.
Tell us about how we lost the war in Vietnam.
Tell us about how the Russians lost in Afghanistan.
Tell us about how we're losing the war in Iraq.
 
Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
As far as "assault weapons" go - given that the 2nd is intended to protect weapons suitable for use in the miltia, these are -exactly- the kids of weapons it protects.
I suppose you'd lobby for the right to carry RPG's.

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Take away all the gun murders, and our murder rate is still higher than Canada's. Thus, our problem isnt the guns, and their solution isnt stricter gun laws.

In any event, it is absolutely proveable that more guns do not = more gun deaths.
What's this, the old 'guns don't kill, people do' mantra again? Or is it, 'guns are a tool just like any other' mantra? I got news for you, guns are not tools!

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Tell us about how we lost the war in Vietnam.
By realizing we never should have been there to begin with.

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Tell us about how the Russians lost in Afghanistan.
Funding from a super-power allied with bin Laden.


Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Tell us about how we're losing the war in Iraq.
See first comment above.
 
Billo_Really said:
I suppose you'd lobby for the right to carry RPG's.
I'd prefer an AT4 - but, clearly, an argument could be made for its protection under the 2nd.


What's this, the old 'guns don't kill, people do' mantra again? Or is it, 'guns are a tool just like any other' mantra? I got news for you, guns are not tools!
Then what are they? Weapons?
Weapons are a tool for projecting force.

By realizing we never should have been there to begin with.
And we 'supposedly' came to that realization, because?

Funding from a super-power allied with bin Laden.
Thats a nice, general statement.
Be specific.

See first comment above.
I see that you;re doing everything you can to keep from having to admit that lightly armed irregulars CAN defeat a strong standing army. I am, of course, not surprised.
 
Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Then what are they? Weapons?
Weapons are a tool for projecting force.
A hammer is a tool. A gun is for killing.

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
I see that you;re doing everything you can to keep from having to admit that lightly armed irregulars CAN defeat a strong standing army. I am, of course, not surprised.
You can't win a guerilla war with a conventional army.
 
Billo_Really said:
A hammer is a tool. A gun is for killing.
Yes. A tool for killing.
A "tool" is a device that allows you to exert less effort when engaged in a task. A gun is a tool, nothing else.

You can't win a guerilla war with a conventional army.
So... a lightly-armed group of irregulars CAN defeat a standing army.
Glad you camke to your senses.
 
Billo_Really said:
Just how would government break that Amendment?

How would the government break ANY amendment? Well how about passing and attempting to enforce legislation in direct contravention of that amendment? One would think that was obvious to any thinking citizen.

Sadly the number of federal, state, and local laws that do just that vis a vis the second amendment are legion. We are whittling away at them slowly, but they keep trying to heap more upon them.
 
Billo_Really said:
So what. Why does the average American need to have an assault weapon? I thought the Clinton ban expired. Canada has stricter gun laws and less murders than we do. Why is the 2nd Amendment so important? Militia's with pea-shooters will not stop armored assault vehicles.


An assault weapon? A meaningless phrase conjured by the petty tyrants who would deny us our rights. Can you even define what an assault weapon is? If I sneak up behind you and hit you with a wrench, is not that wrench an assault weapon? Is my M-1940 Russian Battle Rifle an assault weapon? Is my M-1893 Nagent? How about my Enfiled Mk-IV British Battle Rifle? All are current or former front line main arms for the Army of a major nation. How about my Apache-77 .22 plinking rifle? Would that be an assault weapon? My Remington Marine Special shotgun? Our troops carry those. How about my USAS-12? Is that an assault weapon?

If you cannot define the term accurately, should you bandy it about?

But I will operate under the assumption you mean front line selectable fire rifles. The answer is for the reasons the 2nd was written. As a vaccination against tyranny and brigandry. If all else fails, as the tools to arise and fight the government or lawless mobs. (As someone who lived through the Detroit riots of the 1960's remembering full well all the teens and adults in our neighborhood heavily armed showing themselves and successfully encouraging the rioters to move to another neighborhood I can assure you it works.)

Besides, it is our right. Who needs any rights is really what you are arguing.

As per Canada, it is nearly uniform in its population demographics and largely rural. They do not have the insane drug war like we do either that is the engine that fuels most of the violence in society today just as prohibition did during the depression. You might also note that all of Canada contains less people than California does, much less our entire nation. Again very few of those are urban population at that, where the majority of our nation's violence occurs too. Apples and oranges.
 
Billo_Really said:
I suppose you'd lobby for the right to carry RPG's.

Clearly they are protected by the 2nd Amendments text and intent. Though there are better things I;d rather have. RPG's are not much use against modern heavy armor.

Billo_Really said:
What's this, the old 'guns don't kill, people do' mantra again? Or is it, 'guns are a tool just like any other' mantra? I got news for you, guns are not tools!

If you do not think that a gun is a tool, you need to go look up the definition of both gun and tool. Also, no gun every killed anybody. They are inanimate objects. Takes a live being to load and fire one. Do you blame cars for drunk drivers as well?

Billo_Really said:
By realizing we never should have been there to begin with.

Irrelevant to the fact we were fought to a standstill by irregulars with small arms.

Billo_Really said:
Funding from a super-power allied with bin Laden.

Afghan rebels only had small arms. No armor, no air force, no tube artillery. Except those things they captured using small arms. History is replete with examples. You might also look into the American Revolutionary War, where a rag tag group of randomly armed irregulars held off the most powerful military the world had yet seen long enough for us to develop a regular army. You might note even after the regular army was raised our best troops were still irregulars like the Green Mountain Boys and Sharp's Shooters.

Billo_Really said:
See first comment above.

Repeating a mistake does not make it less of a mistake.
 
Back
Top Bottom