• 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!

[W:1311]The Second Amendment - A Military Right to Bear Arms

Into the Night said:
No. Frankly, I don't care if the magazine carries 1000 rounds. If someone doesn't mind lifting the thing and shooting it, I have no problem with someone making and selling it.

The 2nd amendment does not specify how many rounds a gun is allowed to fire before reloading.
Click to expand...

I was right, you would criticize any number selected for limits in size. Thank you for confirming.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, because it simply makes no sense to say that one can have two (or more) 10-round magazines but not one 15-round magazine. A good clue as to whether a gun feature restriction law is nonsense is the need to include an exemption for police officers.
Click to expand...

If you need a 15 round magazine, you have bigger problems than having to reload.
 
Into the Night said:
You should see the black market in large magazines in NY and CA right now! They think their laws are actually stopping people from buying them!
Click to expand...

Criminal behavior is not to be praised.
 
Rucker61 said:
See post #1882 and all will be answered.

The M1 Carbine can fire 30 bullets before reloading. Not only is it not on the banned list, the government under JFK sold 260,000 of these military surplus, magazine fed, intermediate caliber firearms to American citizens for $20, including postage, and mailed them directly to the buyers' homes. Many of the handguns that the article compared the AR-15 to can also hold 30 or more rounds. That article was a poorly researched propaganda piece.

The Ruger Ranch rifle can also fire 30 rounds before reloading. It's been exempted from every piece of AWB legislation, and it fires exactly the same round as the AR-15.
Click to expand...

The Department of civilian marksmanship continued to sell MI carbines by the thousands until this government agency was privatized under clinton but it continued to sell MI carbines to citizens until a few years ago-I know-I bought three from the DCM and three more from the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program). I also bought several MI Garands from both organizations. most were "Service Grade" but two had new stocks, and new Krieger Criterian Barrels. I used one to win a MI Garand Match that was held under the auspices of the CMP. Years ago, our DCM affiliated gun club would have MI Garand Matches and the club would ISSUE Lake City Arsenal M2 Ball ammo (30-06) to participants at a most nominal fee. BTW I shot EXPERT with a club owned Garand and Ammo when I was 12 or 13/
 
Fearandloathing said:
Picky, distracting argument. The AR-15 is an assault rifle. What can you hunt with a .9 mm with 17 rounds? That "weapon" is designed for ONE THING....to kill humans

If you were asking for the right to keep and bear muzzle-loading weapons, cap and ball, no argument. But reasoning individual can argue that those same founders would have made no such provision had they known there would be "rifles" would be capable of killing dozens of school children in seconds.

And on that score, how is it the basic right to life has to be ignored in favor of a law written 250 years ago? If your classrooms were not littered with blood, images that every school kid has to live with, I might listen to what you think is "reason", but your are the only nation who so wantonly and needlessly allows the lives of children to be taken so some dumb supporter the the Stupid Prick can feel "strong" like the president, for a few minutes.

Guns don't make people strong, they make people backward. I doubt even cave dwelling man disregarded the lives of their children as ruthlessly as has the American right.

You own that
Click to expand...

your claims about the AR-15 are completely dishonest but lies tend to be the anti gun posters' stock in trade. there are 20 million or more AR 15s in the USA and in the fifty years they have been easily available, they have been used to kill less people than baseball bats, hammers and golf clubs. So your claim about the purpose of those rifles is just plain stupid.
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

View attachment 67244766
Click to expand...

You really are confused aren't you? Even the Founders were smart enough to know that the military need not be given permission to bear arms, since it's self evident. The amendment was added after the constitutional conventions in each of the states, to alleviate concerns about standing armies and a tyrannical govt with too much power. In fact the Bill of Rights was ratified for that very reason.
 
haymarket said:
I cannot answer that question. Some guns are designed for six. If that is the guns design, it obviously is not a problem.
Click to expand...

People use revolvers still. Some have eight positions, not six. Some have only four. Most people don't like revolvers despite their simplicity because the trigger pressure is quite high, especially for a double action weapon.

Semiautomatics are more accurate, easier to shoot, and can hold more rounds in the magazines. The actions in a modern semiautomatic are solid and reliable. They don't misfire very often and will not fire until you pull the trigger, even if the weapon is dropped onto concrete. Revolvers are fine, but I prefer semiautomatics. Now you seem to want to ban pistols too, as well as all semiautomatic rifles.


1) The AR15 should be banned because its a semiautomatic, but others are ok.
2) All semiautomatics should be banned.
Which is it, Hay?

1) Pistols don't need to be banned.
2) All semiautomatics should be banned.
Which is it, Hay?
 
haymarket said:
If you need a 15 round magazine, you have bigger problems than having to reload.
Click to expand...

There you go using a complete irrelevant word again. There is no requirement to prove NEED for any right.
 
RF667799 said:
Hahaha! "It has nothing to do with your rights because you do not have a right". I seldom see such an inept, circular bit of reasoning.
Click to expand...

It is not reasoning. It is irrationality. He is arguing both sides of the paradox:

1) the right to self defense is from government
2) the right to self defense is a natural right
 
TurtleDude said:
is it your belief that the federal government was empowered to regulate the militia due to the enactment of the second amendment? what part of the constitution gave the federal government any power to regulate what arms private citizens-acting as private citizens in their own sovereign states-could own or use?
Click to expand...

That's the problem with the constitution. In the case of the 2A, it doesn't say who regulates does it? Might as well be the tooth fairy. To me the current arrangement seems suitable, that the states make their own laws.
 
haymarket said:
You seem to have a great deal of difficulty with the blunt reality that the Second amendment protects no specific firearms but only the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Irrational.

1) some guns should be banned
2) no guns should be banned

Which is it, Hay?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, because it simply makes no sense to say that one can have two (or more) 10-round magazines but not one 15-round magazine. A good clue as to whether a gun feature restriction law is nonsense is the need to include an exemption for police officers.
Click to expand...

No one has ever been able to provide an intelligent argument as to why-if a weapon is so dangerous that honest citizens cannot even own one in their home-it is issued to CIVILIAN police for USE on our streets.

No one has ever been able to explain why they would allow someone to own a firearm that accepts a ten round magazine but at 11 rounds, that person is more likely to misuse the same firearm
 
uptower said:
That's the problem with the constitution. In the case of the 2A, it doesn't say who regulates does it? Might as well be the tooth fairy. To me the current arrangement seems suitable, that the states make their own laws.
Click to expand...

exactly-the founders knew states could and would make laws preventing people carrying firearms into courtrooms etc. No one thought a state would ban good citizens from owning arms but preventing some uses was to be expected. That is why its idiotic for those who claim the federal government was intended to have any gun control powers save for those directly under federal control. (such as federal marshals or those serving in federal armed forces)
 
Into the Night said:
No, you are an idealist. It is YOU that is trying to deny the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment does not specify the size of a magazine. If you have to use a gun in self defense, you ARE involved in combat.

Yup. You're in combat.
Click to expand...

Join the army.
 
TurtleDude said:
exactly-the founders knew states could and would make laws preventing people carrying firearms into courtrooms etc. No one thought a state would ban good citizens from owning arms but preventing some uses was to be expected. That is why its idiotic for those who claim the federal government was intended to have any gun control powers save for those directly under federal control. (such as federal marshals or those serving in federal armed forces)
Click to expand...

I dunno, there's still some leeway in there for the tooth fairy.
 
Rucker61 said:
At what capacity restriction does the 2A get infringed?
Click to expand...

There is no magic number but I am sure any number I pick would be criticized. So what is the point?
 
Into the Night said:
1) The AR15 should be banned because its a semiautomatic, but others are ok.
2) All semiautomatics should be banned.
Which is it, Hay?

1) Pistols don't need to be banned.
2) All semiautomatics should be banned.
Which is it, Hay?
Click to expand...

previously asked and answered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom