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

NYC Mayor Conducts Gun-Sale Sting in Arizona

The Constitution pretty much states The right to firearm ownership shall not be abridged...doesnt?...

yes, within the context of a well-regulated citizen militia, which is supervised, trained, and controlled by a state authority.
 
The ATF should be raiding these guns shows and busting everyone breaking the law.


Mayor Bloomberg and his vigilantes first. then the clowns who allowed all that weaponry to go to mexico
 
yes, within the context of a well-regulated citizen militia, which is supervised, trained, and controlled by a state authority.


another fail and where does the federal government get the power to regulate small arms
 
another fail and where does the federal government get the power to regulate small arms

the federal government has the power to regulate all inter-state trade.

if its made in state A...and sold to someone in state B, Congress has the power to regulate it.
 
The courts are not infallible and as long as they support infringements on the 2nd amendment then they will always be wrong regarding the 2nd amendment. As long as you support infringements on the second amendment you are not pro-2nd amendment.It amounts to saying you are for freedom of religion but think Judaism should be banned.

I did not say they were infallible. I said this was our system. BTW, you're not infallibale. We should gets this out in the open. You really are just as likely, if not more likley, to be wrong in how you read than the courts have been, on any issue. That said, the courts are where these questions play out, are debated, the battle fought. Sometimes your belief wins, and sometimes if loses. When our side loses, it is best to not whine and pout and call the court names, but roll up your sleves and make a better argument.

And you are again making a tree frog to apple comparison. Weapons are not equal to religion. Sorry, you misread the amendment and the law, and are having some trouble seeing what is a real comparison.
 
the federal government has the power to regulate all inter-state trade.

if its made in state A...and sold to someone in state B, Congress has the power to regulate it.

that is intellectually deficient and silly
 
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes


FAIL. :)

that was never intended nor ever interpreted to grant the power you claim it does until FDR decided he needed a way to restrict the sale of tommy guns.

commerce among the several states means the several states-not the people acting as individuals

FAIL
 
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes


FAIL. :)
And, if you cared to learn about the history of it the commerce clause was included only to make regular trade disputes within the states. This is to limit tariffs placed on goods from one state to another or otherwise to make prices regular according to the Union agreement. States were to be sovereign but could not unduly create a trade imbalance with each other. Thus, the fail is yours. Later.
 
that was never intended nor ever interpreted to grant the power you claim it does until FDR decided he needed a way to restrict the sale of tommy guns.

commerce among the several states means the several states-not the people acting as individuals

FAIL

you are contradicting your earlier statement:

...but once I own that gun it no longer is affecting interstate commerce if I decided to sell it to someone who also lives in ohio.

please, explain.
 
I did not say they were infallible. I said this was our system. BTW, you're not infallibale. We should gets this out in the open. You really are just as likely, if not more likley, to be wrong in how you read than the courts have been, on any issue. That said, the courts are where these questions play out, are debated, the battle fought. Sometimes your belief wins, and sometimes if loses. When our side loses, it is best to not whine and pout and call the court names, but roll up your sleves and make a better argument.

If the court blatantly ignores what the constitution says then they are wrong period.

And you are again making a tree frog to apple comparison. Weapons are not equal to religion.
You have a right to both.Both are rights the government has no business regulating or infringing on.
Sorry, you misread the amendment and the law, and are having some trouble seeing what is a real comparison.

This from the person who swears up and down that a well regulated peoples right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution.
 
yes, within the context of a well-regulated citizen militia, which is supervised, trained, and controlled by a state authority.

A well regulated militia and the peoples right to keep and bear arms are two separate rights.
 
you are contradicting your earlier statement:



please, explain.

neither affects interstate commerce as the clause was intended. the second doesn't even affect it using the specious and dishonest FDR interpretation
 
it was never used to regulate items such as fireearms

if it could be used to regulate inter-state boat travel, it can also be used to regulate inter-state gun sales.

but like you said earlier, Congress would have a tough time proving they have the right to regulate the sale of guns that are manufactured & sold in the same state.
 
If the court blatantly ignores what the constitution says then they are wrong period.

That's only true if that is what was actually done. Realize you THINKING that's what they did is not equal to them doing it.

You have a right to both.Both are rights the government has no business regulating or infringing on.

And one is allowed to be regulated, as it is a tool and not people. Keep the difference in mind.

This from the person who swears up and down that a well regulated peoples right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution.

Yep. And people are allowed to keep and bear arms. Hunter have rifles, and people have hand guns, and so on. But the law allows for regulation. I'm sorry, but that is how it is.
 
if it could be used to regulate inter-state boat travel, it can also be used to regulate inter-state gun sales.

but like you said earlier, Congress would have a tough time proving they have the right to regulate the sale of guns that are manufactured & sold in the same state.

Which amendment gives you the inalienable right to keep and bear boats?

Sorry, two different arguments
 
yes, within the context of a well-regulated citizen militia, which is supervised, trained, and controlled by a state authority.

That is one of those foolish Boo self serving. Immense. Not quite as stupid as his most recent masterpiece. But right up there. The Bill of Rights was not written to enumerate government activity but to guarantee the rights of the individual's. Or are you one of those morons that actually believes they would make 9 inalienable individual rights and for some strange reason tuck a government right in the bill of Individual rights?
 
That's only true if that is what was actually done. Realize you THINKING that's what they did is not equal to them doing it.



And one is allowed to be regulated, as it is a tool and not people. Keep the difference in mind.



Yep. And people are allowed to keep and bear arms. Hunter have rifles, and people have hand guns, and so on. But the law allows for regulation. I'm sorry, but that is how it is.

There is not regulation for the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the constitution.There is however regulation on militias in the 2nd amendment.This is why the 2nd amendment doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms".
 
Back
Top Bottom