2nd Amendment Debate. - Page 9
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > 2nd Amendment Debate.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-25-2013, 02:33 PM   #81
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21580 Times on 12248 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opaww View Post
Just my 2 cents worth, "I did not know the Second Amendment was debatable."
it shouldn't be, but for some it is. just ask any gun hating liberal and they will more than glad to tell you the 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be abolished.

many of them will even be glad to tell you that only police and the military need guns and that if civilians were gunless, there would be less crime.

i agree, the 2nd amendment should never have to be debated. "Shall not be infringed"
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 02:57 PM   #82
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,043
Liked 2850 Times on 1688 Posts
Likes Given: 1874

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opaww View Post
Just my 2 cents worth, "I did not know the Second Amendment was debatable."
parts of it are....yes....imo.....

but i've been down that road once or twice before here .....it always ends up going round and round and ending with "agree to disagree" IF everyone is civil....

i've made my feelings clear on the matter earlier in the thread.....i'm not saying anyone has to agree.....and i honestly am far more on the side of those who support the second more staunchly VS those who make statements like "the second is outdated" or "the founders meant muskets..."

and my favorite "the constitution doesn't apply anymore...." where the hell are these MO-rons coming from?

i may disagree on the "LINE" with many of you....but i support the second for the purpose for which it was written....none of you need worry about that.

believe me, you want people like me on YOUR side. i may see aspects of the 2nd as debatable, BUT if you knew how many times i have gone round with anti gun grabber types....i might get more respect in this regard....in about an hour, i have turned someone around who said "all semi autos and assault weapons should be banned..." to "well....maybe semi autos aren't the problem..." like many of you, i am pretty good at debating this subject...and i generally make fools out of those who try to debate firearms with me without bringing their HW to the table...and if you knew how many newbies and firearm fearful i have coached and taught and introduced to shooting....again, you's know i;m serious about our rights.

so when i say the word "ARMS" is vague and merits debate....that means i am thinking in a logical, debate oriented style. it doesn't mean i am not a 2nd supporter, it means i am somewhat open minded when it comes to interpretation and compromise....much like our founding father when they wrote the constitution and bill of rights.

but as said..i've down this road before and thus why i opted out here....please continue the debate...i will be trying to learn...
__________________

Last edited by hawkguy; 08-25-2013 at 03:07 PM.
hawkguy is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 03:06 PM   #83
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,043
Liked 2850 Times on 1688 Posts
Likes Given: 1874

Default

and i will apologize for jumping back in the debate and jumping out....

the reason....i just had an opportunity to talk with someone (PHD) who spent YEARS educating youth and in study of brain anatomy....you could say i learned some s**t....

do you know texas will not allow you to rent a car untill 25? 25!!!! why????

easy...rental companies have not prob with teend wrecking OUR cars...but when it comes to THEIR cars...

a 16 year old is 2X more likely to be an a auto accident than a 17 yr old....a 16 yr old is 5X more likely to be in a auto accident than a 18 yr old.....this is across the board....

in some ways we are babying and protecting youth too much....in others we are pushing them way too fast.....cognitive development does not so much effect morals and empathy (that is parents doing that), but decesion making and common sense? it absolutely does effect it imo....

for some reason, i like 19 as an adult right of passage...but every individual is different.

just wanted to give some input i gained form someone who was far smarter than me on this subject.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
My wife was always saying "She's not old enough" when it came to our youngest daughters seemingly arrested responsibility development; well, shes still screwed up at 32, is that old enough yet to say grow the F up or maybe 40? For 10,000 years, we have seen clear evidence that humans are capable of nearly all things much earlier in life than todays parents want to admit. Our cortex may still be maturing for some time but that doesnt mean we arent fully capable, just not fully developed. Our ears and nose grow until we die but are fully functional by the time our eyes open, teaching them the moment they are capable of understanding is the responsible thing to do!

I guess when it comes to age, Im still holding at 16 as the age most children are capable of becoming an adult. Its only been over the last <75 years that humans have lived to the ripe old age of 60+ as a norm. In our prior extensive history; people fought in wars, got married, got jobs and had children often before they were 16 and were considered elder if they made it to 50. Add to that most humans are capable of spawning young at 11 to 14 years old and my sense is, by 16, you have physically matured far enough to be considered emancipated if youve been given the training to make it on your own. That doesnt mean we will act like adults just because were 16, 18 or 34, just means if given the right background and info young, were able to be an adult with all the rights and responsibilities at age 16.

Human development cognizance is so much older than our current new enlightenment viewpoints gives credit to. We the parents not mother nature have altered the reality of childhood and adult maturation; after all, who doesnt want to be "forever Young"? We hate to see our fledglings take flight and will do anything to keep them in the nest including stunting them via rules and notions that arent based on facts, only feelings.

Identical twins dont mature at the same rate, making an age of transition law only recognizes the preponderance of folks are expected to be ready for adulthood. We all know 50 year old kids that never grew up and 14 year olds that act more adult than their parents so picking any age isnt perfect no matter which one you choose. In the USA today, a kid has no less than 8 transition ages that only go to confuse everyone from age 12 to 27. Then we add a few after 27 to tell us that were old and ancient. Mostly pigeon holed into age appropriate cubicles that are human law not human nature.

So back to where this thread sorta started "the 2a Debate" with the addition of "When is a human entrusted to own all the rights that they are endowed with by nature of being a citizen"? Parents and Guardians are the keeper of the keys and the arbitrators of passage, only they know when their kids arent just kids anymore. They have the ultimate responsibility for preparing those kids to be adults as soon as they are able to process the basis for those steps. Failure to do so isnt generally the kids fault (although it is their problem) or in the governments purview to delegate to the courts unless extreme circumstances illuminate the obvious need for intervention.

Age is a beancounters tool not an indicator of anything by itself. Living many crop cycles doesnt ensure maturity any more than living fewer prevent one from becoming mature.
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
Axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 05:04 PM   #84
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
CardiacColt68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 731
Liked 314 Times on 221 Posts

Default

Here's my take on the question of how far ranging the Constitution allows us to take our 2nd Amendment rights.

What was the most powerful and destructive weapon when our Constitution was debated and ratified? Probably a canon of some sort, correct? And did private citizens and/or companies own canons at that time? Sure they did. If you had the money back then you could bug whatever canon you wanted. Simple. So the founders, and the Constitution had no problem with the citizens owning the same weaponry that the army had. Now obviously they didn't foresee Cruise Missiles, Jets and nukes, but it is fairly obvious they wanted the citizens to be an armed threat to any form of central government or possible abuse of power.

So it seems to me it's high time we all upgraded our 9mms and 45 ACPs, and loaded up on some larger calibers and hardware. 😜

__________________
CardiacColt68 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 05:27 PM   #85
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ctshooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 925
Liked 465 Times on 258 Posts

Default

Lets all keep in mind there was no standing army when they came up with all of this. The army consisted of all able bodied males if the need arose. We must also keep in mind that the founding fathers did not want nor anticipate life long politicians. The original idea was do your term and then head back to your farm and manage that.

__________________
ctshooter is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2013, 08:19 PM   #86
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 5,459
Liked 6134 Times on 3038 Posts
Likes Given: 6513

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ctshooter View Post
Lets all keep in mind there was no standing army when they came up with all of this. The army consisted of all able bodied males if the need arose. We must also keep in mind that the founding fathers did not want nor anticipate life long politicians. The original idea was do your term and then head back to your farm and manage that.
Yes, we didnt have a standing army then but they knew we would and the 2nd stopped that possible standing force from being able to take control over the People of the USA.
__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2013, 11:32 AM   #87
Big TOW
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
WebleyFosbery38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Irish Settlement CNY
Posts: 5,459
Liked 6134 Times on 3038 Posts
Likes Given: 6513

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
and i will apologize for jumping back in the debate and jumping out....

the reason....i just had an opportunity to talk with someone (PHD) who spent YEARS educating youth and in study of brain anatomy....you could say i learned some s**t....

do you know texas will not allow you to rent a car untill 25? 25!!!! why????

easy...rental companies have not prob with teend wrecking OUR cars...but when it comes to THEIR cars...

a 16 year old is 2X more likely to be an a auto accident than a 17 yr old....a 16 yr old is 5X more likely to be in a auto accident than a 18 yr old.....this is across the board....

in some ways we are babying and protecting youth too much....in others we are pushing them way too fast.....cognitive development does not so much effect morals and empathy (that is parents doing that), but decesion making and common sense? it absolutely does effect it imo....

for some reason, i like 19 as an adult right of passage...but every individual is different.

just wanted to give some input i gained form someone who was far smarter than me on this subject.
Hawk, what you said has much credibility behind it, but the fix isnt an age Darwin wouldn't recognize. The Children have become what we made them. Living long is a new thing, facing and surviving danger isnt. Were not teaching them to be prepared for the real dangers they will face out in the big world then were throwing them into it like lambs to the wolves.

Trying to teach a kid to "Multi Task" yet they havent mastered the task by itself, its the day 2 Microsoft Mentality thats killing our kids (Multitasking is Impossible by the way, our brain cannot really do two complex tasks at once). When it comes to survival, you only have one chance to get it right.

It is "We the Parents" that need to be retrained not the kids.
__________________
WebleyFosbery38 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 01:44 AM   #88
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,043
Liked 2850 Times on 1688 Posts
Likes Given: 1874

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WebleyFosbery38 View Post
Hawk, what you said has much credibility behind it, but the fix isnt an age Darwin wouldn't recognize. The Children have become what we made them. Living long is a new thing, facing and surviving danger isnt. Were not teaching them to be prepared for the real dangers they will face out in the big world then were throwing them into it like lambs to the wolves.

Trying to teach a kid to "Multi Task" yet they havent mastered the task by itself, its the day 2 Microsoft Mentality thats killing our kids (Multitasking is Impossible by the way, our brain cannot really do two complex tasks at once). When it comes to survival, you only have one chance to get it right.

It is "We the Parents" that need to be retrained not the kids.
bam! great post and well said.
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 05:59 AM   #89
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
mahall's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 891
Liked 160 Times on 138 Posts
Likes Given: 15

Default

Lets see, you can't vote at 18, because of being overly venerable to the influence of others!! A nice way of saying, incapable of making sound choices without being subject to the influence of others. You can't buy a beer at 18 for smiler reasons stated above, decision making!! If its one thing maturity has given me, the ability say "no"in the face of the others screaming "yes". When I was young it used to be fun to be "cool" and it didn't matter what rule or law I had to break, if I thought I could by with it. 30 years later "No" is No and laws are meant to uphold, despite how cool they might be to bend or break! Experience is the best teachers. And "time" is the one thing that can't me circumvented! Let the kids enjoy there youth without worrying about if a gun in the backpack would be a good idea!!

__________________
mahall is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 06:17 AM   #90
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6563 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahall View Post
Lets see, you can't vote at 18, because of being overly venerable to the influence of others!! A nice way of saying, incapable of making sound choices without being subject to the influence of others. You can't buy a beer at 18 for smiler reasons stated above, decision making!! If its one thing maturity has given me, the ability say "no"in the face of the others screaming "yes". When I was young it used to be fun to be "cool" and it didn't matter what rule or law I had to break, if I thought I could by with it. 30 years later "No" is No and laws are meant to uphold, despite how cool they might be to bend or break! Experience is the best teachers. And "time" is the one thing that can't me circumvented! Let the kids enjoy there youth without worrying about if a gun in the backpack would be a good idea!!
Your contradicting yourself.

Quote:
When I was young it used to be fun to be "cool" and it didn't matter what rule or law I had to break
Quote:
Let the kids enjoy there youth without worrying about if a gun in the backpack would be a good idea!!
Basically your saying that if they want to do something, they ARE going to do it whether it's legal or not. If they want a gun, they'll get one. If they want to carry it, they'll carry it. If they want to kill someone, unless that person is also armed they probably do it too. No amount of legislation can stop bad people from doing bad things.

That makes the age law pointless.

Your also grouping in the bad with the good. Your telling the responsible teens that they can't do something because of the actions of a few bad teens.

That is like the Libtards telling you that you can't own a gun because of what criminals have done.

I enjoyed my youth (and still am), and I've had a handgun since I was 19. I enjoy shooting, working on guns, and reloading ammo for them. What your wanting would take that enjoyment away from others. (too late to take it away from me)
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Debate TWMIM Politics, Religion and Controversy 43 10-31-2012 07:50 PM
Vp debate Mosin Politics, Religion and Controversy 76 10-14-2012 03:01 AM
Age old debate stevem8 Semi-Auto Handguns 21 06-16-2012 02:11 AM
GOP Debate Ploofy Politics, Religion and Controversy 31 09-30-2011 05:11 AM
AR Debate. Comeswithbacon AR-15 Discussion 20 07-11-2011 06:23 PM