• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should all countries adopt a 2nd Amendment (Right To Bear Arms)?

Should all countries adopt a 2nd Amendment (Right To Bear Arms)?

  • Total voters
  • This poll will close: .


I go leaps and bounds
"most cities have Democratic mayors for the simple reason that urban voters, especially in large cities, tend to be Democrats"

With nine out of the top ten most unsafe cities being ran by democrats, you may have just found the problem

So what is the problem during the times when the Republicans are running the country?


Well-Known Member
According to @Shadow Wolf post #73, these are the 10 most unsafe cities, so take that up with shadow wolf
Now I took the time to look up the mayor in each one so you can take my word for it or look them up and see that I'm right. Your choice.

Nine out of the ten most unsafe cities are democrat controlled. The top nine

Only five out of the ten most safe cities are democrat controlled. Only one in the top five(#4)

10 most unsafe cities.
St. Louis, Missouri, mayor is democrat
Jackson, Mississippi, mayor is democrat
Detroit, Michigan, mayor is democrat
New Orleans, Louisiana, mayor is democrat
Baltimore, Maryland, mayor is democrat
Memphis, Tennessee, mayor is democrat
Cleveland, Ohio, mayor is democrat
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, mayor is democrat
Kansas City, Missouri, mayor is democrat
Shreveport, Louisiana, mayor is republican

The 10 safest cities
Virginia Beach, Virginia, mayor is republican
Honolulu, Hawaii, mayor is nonpartison
Henderson, Nevada, mayor is nonpartison
El Paso, Texas, mayor is democrat
Mesa, Arizona, mayor is republican
San Diego, California, mayor is democrat
Raleigh, North Carolina, mayor is democrat
Anaheim, California, mayor is democrat
San Jose, California, mayor is democrat
Santa Ana, California, mayor is nonpartison
Enabling (D)’s create cesspools of dysfunction and then run on fixing the problems but just create more of the same!

We Never Know

No Slack
I have seen very different lists for safest and most unsafe, depending on the criteria used, so people need to take these clickbait lists with a grain of salt. However, the fact remains that Democrats tend to run most cities in the US, because urban voters tend to favor Democratic policies, including especially gun control, education, and support for government infrastructure. Moreover, you are just looking at party affiliation without actually looking at the policies supported by the few Republican mayors. In my experience, most of those Republican mayors favor pretty much the same agenda as Democratic mayors, including being for tougher gun control laws.

Or explained why looking at superficial party affiliation does not actually show a difference between how Democratic and Republican mayors actually run city governments. Most importantly, you haven't shown why the policies of Republican mayors, most of whom seem to be elected in small cities in rural areas, actually lead to less dangerous conditions. You need to show a difference between Democrats and Republicans that could have a bearing on the criteria used to rank cities "safe" or "unsafe".

If your have a problem with the link(s), here is where you start(quote inserted below)

Until shown different,,, the top nine most unsafe cities are ran by democrats and of the top five most safe cities only one is ran by democrats.

You specifically said to defend yourself against the Left's constituency.
Bull****! You don't get to "defend" yourself against people who just exist. And protect yourself against what? If anything I should be the one with a gun and taser to protect myself against Republicans and Christians who seek to do violence against trans people. And apparently also those who feel the need to shoot left leaning constituents and call it self defense.
And no, bull****, Dems have not shrunk the police force around America and like it or not Red states and cities have more violence.

That is a see of Red, and according to a source that leans Right.
Here's the safest, according to Forbes, and look at all the Blue, and take in all that Blue and understand America itself is an ocean of Red.

We Never Know

No Slack
Doesn't seem right, through natural attrition the republicans would win everytime.
That's another problem. No matter how things are or who is running many only vote for their party.
There are a few here that even stated there is no way they would ever vote for the other party.


Veteran Member
Actually, it was about militias that used single-shot long guns in battle. Military formations had to be drilled to keep up a continuous fusillade. That is, while some were shooting, others were aiming, and others were reloading in coordinated fashion. The term "well-regulated militia" was probably meant in that context to mean "well-trained" or "well-coordinated". A regulated militia is the specific purpose found in the wording of the amendment itself. After repeating rifles came into use during the Civil War, the need for coordinated fusillades disappeared. The US ended up replacing its system of state militias with a reorganized National Guard (Militia Act of 1903), which does not rely on private ownership of weapons.

Until the 5-4 Heller decision turned it into a private right, it was always considered a right connected to collective defense, but those five justices were imbued with the interpretation that the NRA and its gun manufacturing sponsors had been working to spread for decades. Militias were almost always government-controlled organized paramilitary organizations in the past. George Washington even led militia troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. The rebels were using their own weapons to fight the actual militia.
An op-ed drifting into cant with one irrelevant citation.

We Never Know

No Slack
They are citizens and have the right to vote so of course they should vote. They pay taxes, they are citizens, they get a vote. The Constitution even guarantees the right to vote.
And your ignoring your statement of dedending yourself against the "Left constituency." Maybe I should carry mace incase I'm attacked by a Christian who thinks its ok to use violence against non-theists?
A constitutional right is a constitutional right so will they get their right to have guns back or just the right to vote?
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
A right is a right so will they get their right to have guns back or just the right to vote?
Voting is actually a privilege, not a right since it can be revocable depending on circumstances and legality.

I also see that with guns as well, which I struggle with because it makes sense and no sense at the same time. Ie; felons losing 2nd amendment rights upon paying back their debt to society.


Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Voting is actually a privilege, not a right since it can be revocable depending on circumstances and legality.
That's wrong. Voting is a right, & like many other
rights, it can be lost under limited circumstances.
A privilege isn't afforded everyone, & if granted
is more easily revoked.
Think of the differences as a matter of degree.

We Never Know

No Slack
Where does the Constitution say they are to have their right to vote removed? Even incarcerated they are still citizens amd Constitutionally entitled to vote.
There was actually a supreme court cases on this. According to the court, the 14th amendment allows the right to vote to be taken away.

"The Supreme Court relied on Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which calls for reducing representation in the U.S. House of Representatives for any state that denies the right to vote to its voters (a provision designed to prevent the Southern states from disenfranchising black citizens after the Civil War). But Section 2 makes an exception for denying voting rights to citizens because of "participation in rebellion, or other crimes."[6] The Court said that this distinguishes felony disenfranchisement from other forms of voting restrictions, which must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests in order to be constitutional.[7]

The Court also reviewed the legislative history of Section 2, and relied as well on the fact that when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, over half of the U.S. states allowed denying the right to vote to "persons convicted of felonies or infamous crimes."[8]



Industrial Strength Linguist
If you dont distinguish opinion from fact
now you wont later, so never mind.

OK. If you can't explain what you wrote now, you won't later. So maybe put down your cell phone and look for a computer with a keyboard. ;)