Debate Politics Forums
Speak your voice
Go Back   Debate Politics Forums > Debate Politics Forum > Archives

Archives the 2nd amendment conflicts with article 1 sec.10 clause 1 of the costitiution; OK I've got a question? people debate about the right to bear arms in the United States, people that ...

View Poll Results: Do u agree with this?
yes, 100% 1 33.33%
somewhat? 0 0%
no 1 33.33%
I have no opinion on the matter 1 33.33%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 3. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-21-05, 11:19 PM   #1 (permalink)
User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Last Online: 10-22-05 12:18 AM
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Gender: Female

the 2nd amendment conflicts with article 1 sec.10 clause 1 of the costitiution

OK I've got a question? people debate about the right to bear arms in the United States, people that are against it say that the reason the U.S. constitutional writers wrote "the right to bear arms" was so that the states would be able to maintain a state militia, but in Article I sec.10 clause 1 of the Constitution it says "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." so according to that it would outlaw state militia so therefore proving that amendment 2 of the constitution was not made to let states maintain there state militias..
shatteredxdreams8 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!Spurl this Post!
Inline Ads
Old 10-22-05, 11:42 AM   #2 (permalink)
Banned
 
DHard3006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Last Online: 04-21-06 11:43 AM
Location: AZ
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Lean: Very Conservative
Gender: Male

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shatteredxdreams8
people that are against it say that the reason the U.S. constitutional writers wrote "the right to bear arms" was so that the states would be able to maintain a state militia,
There is no requirement to be in a militia to bear arms. The gun haters chant this lie because they want to ban the right to bear arms. A requirement to be in a militia to bear arms would be an infringement.
Proof that the gun haters just want to ban the right to bear arms was the late AWB. That ban banned 19 types of firearms that had a militia usefulness. The gun haters hide behind the Miller case to justify gun control laws. The court in that case said if a firearm has no useful militia use it is not protected by the 2nd amend. Well the 19 guns banned by the late AWB were of the type used for militia or military use.
DHard3006 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!Spurl this Post!
Old 10-22-05, 05:41 PM   #3 (permalink)
Guru

 
TurtleDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Last Online: Today 02:12 PM
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,293
Thanks: 283
Thanked 167 Times in 131 Posts
Lean: Conservative
Gender: Male

Current Mood:
Tolerant
Re: the 2nd amendment conflicts with article 1 sec.10 clause 1 of the costitiution

THere is a guy who surfs the web using several handles including "tim trammel" and "jimmy the one" who claims that Revolutionary area philosopher Rawles claimed that the RKBA was a subordinate clause to the first thus you have to be in the militia. Some also claim that various parts of the main body of the USSC allows the government to regulate arms. THis is false and the "state right" interpretation of the second amendment is not even taken seriously by legal scholars these days. Unfortunately, starting with a Supreme Court of Kansas ruling at the start of the century. several courts have wrongly interpreted the second and that is why the state right error continues

Here are some points

1) IF the second amendment only applies to those in a regular militia like the national guard, then the natural rights of all other citizens is recognized by the NINTH AMENDMENT

2) The commerce clause is used to justify federal gun control-the speciousness of that needs no explanation and conflicts with either the second or the Ninth

3) the national guard is a federal actor with the stroke of the President's pen. ONly a complete moron would claim that the second amendment-as part of the BOR empowers the federal government

4) THe odious Lautenberg amendment disbarred-retroactively, state troopers and guardsmen who had been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor-sometimes years before the LA was enacted. IF THE right was a state right, a federal law could not disarm a state militiaman

5) in the 1870's the Cruikshank case held that the Second amendment did NOT CREATE A Right TO KBA. THIS IS TRUE. IT ONLY RECOGNIZES a preexisting right. STATIST courts found that since it didn't create a right none existed. THIS IS THE BASIS FOR ALL THE ANTI INDIVIDUAL RIGHT JURISPRUDENCE-pathetic in its reasoning

6) gun hating judges know that the second and/or ninth and tenth amendments preclude federal gun control so they ignore it. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT made on the constitution for gun control GUn hating shills like Jimmy the One (a paid troll for the VPC) or Brady Consigliere Dennis Hennigan always couch their arguments as follows

a) bad precedent based on a clearly false reading of Cruikshank or b) guns are bad, screw the intent of the constitution and c) we have to pretend the second amendment says what we want it to say or people will have guns and kill everyone

there is no area of constitutional law where one side is more dishonest than second amendment issues and the Anti Rights Coalition and their paid shills (ARC)
__________________
SUPPORT OUR SOLDIERS
TurtleDude is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Reddit! Wong this Post!Spurl this Post!
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should the 22nd Amendment be Repealed Billo_Really Archives 1 07-13-05 11:05 PM
Should the 22nd Amendment be Repealed Billo_Really Archives 2 07-13-05 10:57 PM
Balanced Budget Amendment shuamort Archives 1 05-19-05 10:55 AM

Navigation
Home Main
spacer Home
spacer Newsroom
spacer Resources
spacer FAQ
spacer Chatroom

Extras Extras
spacer DP Store
spacer Statistics
spacer Worldmap
spacer Gallery
spacer Link to us

 Advertise Here!

Random Pic
by Billo_Really
· · ·
Member Galleries
988 photos
217 comments



Debate Politics XML Feed

Add to my Yahoo!



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:55 PM.

Partners with: Computer repair || Irrationally Informed

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Debate Politics.com Copyright ©2004-2008
SEO by vBSEO