Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should the 2nd ammendment be repealed?

Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:30:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

No

Not only is it a basic right to defend yourself, it would leave us defenseless against the ones most capable of causing us harm, the military, criminals, and the government
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:31:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Repeal the Constitution
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:37:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:30:59 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

No

Not only is it a basic right to defend yourself, it would leave us defenseless against the ones most capable of causing us harm, the military, criminals, and the government

+1
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:37:42 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:31:05 PM, someloser wrote:
Repeal the Constitution

What?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:38:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:37:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:31:05 PM, someloser wrote:
Repeal the Constitution

What?

Sarcasm
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:39:01 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:38:43 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:37:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:31:05 PM, someloser wrote:
Repeal the Constitution

What?

Sarcasm

Good
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:42:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
This shall be the new second ammendment: https://www.thestar.com...

A new column will be added for "Collective Rights of Colonized and conquered States"
"Change your sig."
~YYW
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:46:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:42:18 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
This shall be the new second ammendment: https://www.thestar.com...

A new column will be added for "Collective Rights of Colonized and conquered States"

https://m.popkey.co...
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:49:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:46:12 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:42:18 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
This shall be the new second ammendment: https://www.thestar.com...

A new column will be added for "Collective Rights of Colonized and conquered States"

https://m.popkey.co...

http://i.imgur.com...
"Change your sig."
~YYW
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 9:50:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:38:43 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:37:42 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:31:05 PM, someloser wrote:
Repeal the Constitution

What?

Sarcasm
maybe. either way...
there's a point in there somewhere.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:11:53 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

Well considering half of it is archaic and no longer feasible in nature it certainly seems it could be rewritten. Probably not repealed.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:18:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

Yea. It is a strange right to a device. It should be repealed and normal debate on where gun laws start. Toss all the crazy, and talk it out like a normal society.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:22:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:11:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

Well considering half of it is archaic and no longer feasible in nature it certainly seems it could be rewritten. Probably not repealed.

Which half?
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:26:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
The optimal solution would be some kind of gun which is physically impossible to remove from a certain facility and still be functional.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:27:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
No, and judges need to stop intentionally misinterpreting it. I understand that rapists and other criminals are more likely to vote Democrat so Democrats want to repeal the 2nd amendment so women and elderly are left defenseless againat rapists, robbers and other people who overwhemingly vote Democrat, but they really should set politics aside and let people defend themselves from rape, robbery and other types of violence that come from a pretty big portion of that party's supporters.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:30:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:26:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The optimal solution would be some kind of gun which is physically impossible to remove from a certain facility and still be functional.

How would that be optimal? The purpose of the 2nd amendment is defense against tyranny, so how would keeping our guns indoors accomplish that?
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:33:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

No, it should not be repealed. But contrary to popular belief in some circles, the right to bear arms is not unrestricted. Nor was it ever meant by our founders to equip a coup d'etat against our own government. Rather, it was meant to equip the citizenry against enemies both foreign and domestic (such as invasion and insurrection) and to keep the nation's standing army as small as feasible.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:34:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:22:40 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:11:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

Well considering half of it is archaic and no longer feasible in nature it certainly seems it could be rewritten. Probably not repealed.

Which half?

"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."

The first half, we do not have an equivalent to local militias today...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:38:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:30:58 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:26:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The optimal solution would be some kind of gun which is physically impossible to remove from a certain facility and still be functional.

How would that be optimal? The purpose of the 2nd amendment is defense against tyranny, so how would keeping our guns indoors accomplish that?

That's true, though to fight off the Feds one would need far superior weapons than are available to the public.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:39:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:34:23 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:22:40 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:11:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

Well considering half of it is archaic and no longer feasible in nature it certainly seems it could be rewritten. Probably not repealed.

Which half?

"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."

The first half, we do not have an equivalent to local militias today...

Unless I'm mistaken, 10 U.S. Code 311 still applies which means that both you (assuming you live in the US) and I are both already members of the militia.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:41:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:39:26 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:34:23 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:22:40 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:11:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

Well considering half of it is archaic and no longer feasible in nature it certainly seems it could be rewritten. Probably not repealed.

Which half?

"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."

The first half, we do not have an equivalent to local militias today...

Unless I'm mistaken, 10 U.S. Code 311 still applies which means that both you (assuming you live in the US) and I are both already members of the militia.

Not in the sense of a militia then. Initially there was no standing army.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:41:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:33:30 PM, Fly wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

No, it should not be repealed. But contrary to popular belief in some circles, the right to bear arms is not unrestricted. Nor was it ever meant by our founders to equip a coup d'etat against our own government. Rather, it was meant to equip the citizenry against enemies both foreign and domestic (such as invasion and insurrection) and to keep the nation's standing army as small as feasible.

How are you supposed to defeat domestic enemies if you can not perform a coup d'etat?
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:43:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:38:06 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:30:58 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:26:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The optimal solution would be some kind of gun which is physically impossible to remove from a certain facility and still be functional.

How would that be optimal? The purpose of the 2nd amendment is defense against tyranny, so how would keeping our guns indoors accomplish that?

That's true, though to fight off the Feds one would need far superior weapons than are available to the public.

For the millionth time, no we wouldn't. People for whatever reason seem to think that armed conflicts consist of a big rock-paper-scissors match in which whoever has the stronger symbol (better equipment in this case) wins by default. Given the ungodly amount of privately owned firearms in the US and the amount of private citizens able to wield them, federal military victory would in no way be assured, particularly given that we've lost or at the very least stalemated in the past to significantly less well equipped forces (*cough* Vietnam *cough*). That's also not even factoring in the likelihood that a significant portion of the military would actually side with the general public over the feds. If you'd like to make this official though, I'd be more than happy to do a debate on the subject.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:45:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:39:26 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:34:23 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:22:40 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:11:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

Well considering half of it is archaic and no longer feasible in nature it certainly seems it could be rewritten. Probably not repealed.

Which half?

"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."

The first half, we do not have an equivalent to local militias today...

Unless I'm mistaken, 10 U.S. Code 311 still applies which means that both you (assuming you live in the US) and I are both already members of the militia.

Not meant as a comprehensive response, but this is a decent debate on this topic...

https://www.youtube.com...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:45:42 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:41:02 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:39:26 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:34:23 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:22:40 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:11:53 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

Well considering half of it is archaic and no longer feasible in nature it certainly seems it could be rewritten. Probably not repealed.

Which half?

"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."

The first half, we do not have an equivalent to local militias today...

Unless I'm mistaken, 10 U.S. Code 311 still applies which means that both you (assuming you live in the US) and I are both already members of the militia.

Not in the sense of a militia then. Initially there was no standing army.

Which makes the modern version of a militia as defined under that code different how?
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 10:55:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

Perhaps, but one thing is for certain. The 22nd amendment should be repealed.

http://www.debate.org...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 11:02:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:41:26 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:33:30 PM, Fly wrote:
At 5/25/2016 9:25:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
What is your opinion on that?

No, it should not be repealed. But contrary to popular belief in some circles, the right to bear arms is not unrestricted. Nor was it ever meant by our founders to equip a coup d'etat against our own government. Rather, it was meant to equip the citizenry against enemies both foreign and domestic (such as invasion and insurrection) and to keep the nation's standing army as small as feasible.

How are you supposed to defeat domestic enemies if you can not perform a coup d'etat?

I was referring to the original intention of arming the people, not the scope of the armament in this instance.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Dark-one
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 11:04:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:38:06 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:30:58 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:26:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The optimal solution would be some kind of gun which is physically impossible to remove from a certain facility and still be functional.

How would that be optimal? The purpose of the 2nd amendment is defense against tyranny, so how would keeping our guns indoors accomplish that?

That's true, though to fight off the Feds one would need far superior weapons than are available to the public.

Any group with solid training and decent weapons can hold off Feds just fine.

You remember that bank robbery a little while back where the cops couldn't take em? They were exchanging fire with guys who knew how to hold a defensive perimeter.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2016 11:06:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/25/2016 10:43:50 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:38:06 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:30:58 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 5/25/2016 10:26:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The optimal solution would be some kind of gun which is physically impossible to remove from a certain facility and still be functional.

How would that be optimal? The purpose of the 2nd amendment is defense against tyranny, so how would keeping our guns indoors accomplish that?

That's true, though to fight off the Feds one would need far superior weapons than are available to the public.

For the millionth time, no we wouldn't. People for whatever reason seem to think that armed conflicts consist of a big rock-paper-scissors match in which whoever has the stronger symbol (better equipment in this case) wins by default. Given the ungodly amount of privately owned firearms in the US and the amount of private citizens able to wield them, federal military victory would in no way be assured, particularly given that we've lost or at the very least stalemated in the past to significantly less well equipped forces (*cough* Vietnam *cough*). That's also not even factoring in the likelihood that a significant portion of the military would actually side with the general public over the feds. If you'd like to make this official though, I'd be more than happy to do a debate on the subject.

^^^^ someone gets it
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw