• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Write a New 2nd Amendment

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you were to rewrite the 2nd amendment as to what you would have it state in regards to ownership of "arms" and self defense as a whole.
 

Winchester

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
6,665
Reaction score
6,277
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The right of the people to keep and bear arms* shall not be infringed.

*arms = to include any and all arms that could have a military use, carried by a soldier and is non-explosive in nature.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
38,034
Reaction score
9,937
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you were to rewrite the 2nd amendment as to what you would have it state in regards to ownership of "arms" and self defense as a whole.

The right of the citizen to own/possess a firearm shall not be infringed; however, prior to purchasing a firearm, the citizen must undergo no less then fifteen(15) hours of firearms safety and training and have successfully undergone a physiological test to prove that they aren't mentally ill.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I do NOT think its necessary to rewrite it as its fine the way it was originally written.
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The recent SCOTUS rulings have completely cleared up the situation that I dont think it needs rewriting. It'll take a while for the courts to work through it though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2016
Messages
2,395
Reaction score
421
Location
Palatine, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If a grade school kid wrote:

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.

...he would be scolded and ordered to take remedial classes in English. It is really that awful.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,765
Reaction score
79,553
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If you were to rewrite the 2nd amendment as to what you would have it state in regards to ownership of "arms" and self defense as a whole.

(The Commerce Clause shall not apply to individual citizens)

The federal government shall make no laws, regulations or executive orders that affect the ownership, possession, acquisition, use, sale, or transfer by any citizen of the United States.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,765
Reaction score
79,553
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The right of the citizen to own/possess a firearm shall not be infringed; however, prior to purchasing a firearm, the citizen must undergo no less then fifteen(15) hours of firearms safety and training and have successfully undergone a physiological test to prove that they aren't mentally ill.

so you don't believe in innocent unless proven guilty
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
38,034
Reaction score
9,937
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
so you don't believe in innocent unless proven guilty

I think that the guy who thinks the toaster is reporting on him to the government probably shouldn't be able to pick up a firearm.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,765
Reaction score
79,553
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I think that the guy who thinks the toaster is reporting on him to the government probably shouldn't be able to pick up a firearm.

well after the person has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, he cannot do that legally

but until then, I don't trust the government to actually have a power to make people subject themselves to such a "test" just to exercise a right. Can you imagine if someone suggested that anyone who wants an abortion or gay marriage do the same?

besides, do you think crooks are going to bother?
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
38,034
Reaction score
9,937
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
well after the person has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, he cannot do that legally

but until then, I don't trust the government to actually have a power to make people subject themselves to such a "test" just to exercise a right. Can you imagine if someone suggested that anyone who wants an abortion or gay marriage do the same?

besides, do you think crooks are going to bother?

Yeah, people would provably go through the roof.

Crooks probably wouldn't bother either.
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The right of the citizen to own/possess a firearm shall not be infringed; however, prior to purchasing a firearm, the citizen must undergo no less then fifteen(15) hours of firearms safety and training and have successfully undergone a physiological test to prove that they aren't mentally ill.

With wording like that, you might as well suggest abolishing the Second Amendment altogether. Maybe that is what you are suggesting. :shrug:
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
38,034
Reaction score
9,937
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
With wording like that, you might as well suggest abolishing the Second Amendment altogether. Maybe that is what you are suggesting. :shrug:

How dare I suggest that if somebody wants a firearm they actually have to learn how to safely use it and ensure that they aren't crazy, right? It's not like firearms are lethal, right?
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How dare I suggest that if somebody wants a firearm they actually have to learn how to safely use it and ensure that they aren't crazy, right? It's not like firearms are lethal, right?

Our rights are not predicated upon the subjective whims of others. Furthermore, the words "own/possess" are far too vague, and could easily be used by the courts to usurp the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
38,034
Reaction score
9,937
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Our rights are not predicated upon the subjective whims of others. Furthermore, the words "own/possess" are far too vague, and could easily be used by the courts to usurp the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The guy who thinks the toaster is reporting on him to the CIA shouldnt be allowed to endanger himself and others by possessing a firearm.

For every right a citizen has, there's also a responsibility. Government also has responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to keep the citizenry safe from each each other.

An untrained citizen attempting to use a firearm is a recipe for distaster many times. People have to go to drivers ed before they get their license. A similar thing for firearms safety would greatly cut down the number of accidental deaths and injuries.
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The guy who thinks the toaster is reporting on him to the CIA shouldnt be allowed to endanger himself and others by possessing a firearm.

For every right a citizen has, there's also a responsibility. Government also has responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to keep the citizenry safe from each each other.

An untrained citizen attempting to use a firearm is a recipe for distaster many times. People have to go to drivers ed before they get their license. A similar thing for firearms safety would greatly cut down the number of accidental deaths and injuries.

It matters not, the wording of your proposed amendment is idiotic, naive, and dangerous.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,765
Reaction score
79,553
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
How dare I suggest that if somebody wants a firearm they actually have to learn how to safely use it and ensure that they aren't crazy, right? It's not like firearms are lethal, right?

1) most firearms deaths are suicides. Lack of operating knowledge has no relevance to that

2) the next leading source of firearms deaths are criminals-killing other criminals and sometimes honest people-lack of operating skills have no relevance

3) the next category is people who have yet to have a record killing other people-be it legally or illegally-once again, lack of operating skills is not relevant

finally we have accidental shootings. they are going DOWN as the number of guns goes up. Less than 1000 a year and that includes people who are immune to taking classes like little kids so your "solution" is a waste of time
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,765
Reaction score
79,553
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The guy who thinks the toaster is reporting on him to the CIA shouldnt be allowed to endanger himself and others by possessing a firearm.

For every right a citizen has, there's also a responsibility. Government also has responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to keep the citizenry safe from each each other.

An untrained citizen attempting to use a firearm is a recipe for distaster many times. People have to go to drivers ed before they get their license. A similar thing for firearms safety would greatly cut down the number of accidental deaths and injuries.


You need to prove that causes more than a statistically irrelevant number. you are must making stuff up BTW.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
38,034
Reaction score
9,937
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It matters not, the wording of your proposed amendment is idiotic, naive, and dangerous.

Why? Because the Illuminati is planning to set up the one world government and even the crazy people will be needed to resist their deprivations?
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
38,034
Reaction score
9,937
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You need to prove that causes more than a statistically irrelevant number. you are must making stuff up BTW.

How many people have died because of accidental discharges? When kids get their hands on their parents firearms? Etc, etc, etc
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,059
Reaction score
6,737
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you were to rewrite the 2nd amendment as to what you would have it state in regards to ownership of "arms" and self defense as a whole.

I'd eliminate the explanatory phrase and leave "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The phrase just confuses, and there's no need to explain why you have a right.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,765
Reaction score
79,553
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
How many people have died because of accidental discharges? When kids get their hands on their parents firearms? Etc, etc, etc

in a nation of over 350 million guns, statistically none
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,765
Reaction score
79,553
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'd eliminate the explanatory phrase and leave "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The phrase just confuses, and there's no need to explain why you have a right.

I would define infringe. we have seen people claim that this term allows anything other than a complete ban. That is a lie of course but it is common among the bannerrhoid movement
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,059
Reaction score
6,737
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
How dare I suggest that if somebody wants a firearm they actually have to learn how to safely use it and ensure that they aren't crazy, right? It's not like firearms are lethal, right?

Then should that not extend to the other amendments? Like speech? religion? voting? Bad voting causes far more harm than bad shooting.
 
Top Bottom