• 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

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?


I have seen many a gun hater claim that the second amendment granted the Federal government the power to regulate militias. Seriously
 
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".

The courts have heard this often, and not once has it ruled that we cannot regulate weapons. So, you are likely quite wrong about that. As for you militia argument, I'll try not to be too harsh, but it is one sentence. The first part of the sentence cannot be seen as spearate from the second part. The first part sets up the context for the second part. While there is disagreement on what regulate means, there is no disagreement on the context.
 
The courts have heard this often, and not once has it ruled that we cannot regulate weapons. So, you are likely quite wrong about that. As for you militia argument, I'll try not to be too harsh, but it is one sentence. The first part of the sentence cannot be seen as spearate from the second part. The first part sets up the context for the second part. While there is disagreement on what regulate means, there is no disagreement on the context.

no one seriously believes that one has to be a member of a "well regulated" (ie formed militia which has appointed officers etc) to keep and bear arms
 
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?

The 2nd Amendment provided for The People to be able to arm themselves, as part of the citizen-militia mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the USC. This militia was further discussed in the Militia Act of 1792.

However, this citizen-volunteer militia was pretty much done away with in the Militia Act of 1903.

So, we still have the right to keep & bear arms as part of a government-regulated, citizen Militia.....but the militia hasn't existed in more 100 years.

Someday, these two realities will be rectified.
 
no one seriously believes that one has to be a member of a "well regulated" (ie formed militia which has appointed officers etc) to keep and bear arms

regulated by the State, supervised by the State, trained by the State.

the militia is long-gone...but the method of keeping it armed has stuck around.
 
regulated by the State, supervised by the State, trained by the State.

the militia is long-gone...but the method of keeping it armed has stuck around.

so you agree with me the federal government's power to regulate arms is rather specious. especially after the gun has been sold to a retail dealer by a wholesaler. I can only buy handguns from a dealer in the same state as me-why should that transaction be subject to federal regulation since the retail sale is not interstate commerce?


I will tell you why; because the assholes who engaged in outcome based "analysis (FDR wanted to ban mobsters from having machine guns so they started with a ban and worked backwards) to regulate firearms were not intellectually honest nor interested in following the constitution
 
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?

From the start of the country, have you ever seen that win in the courts?
 
The ATF should be raiding these guns shows and busting everyone breaking the law.

That would be time out of their border gun trafficking operations, cant have that.

Hazl, if you dont start saying something remotely rational Im going to keep owning the crap out of you with irony regarding how terrible ATF has been in its mission under Obama.
 
why was the 2nd Amendment written? to provide for the arming of the citizen-Militia, which was spelled out in Article 1 Section 8 of the USC, and further codified in the Militia Act of 1792.

It wasn't written so folks could have guns to shoot rabbits & trees. It was to make sure the citizen militia was armed and ready to be called up by the GOVERNMENT to help put down rebellion, insurrection, etc etc.

The Militia is no more. It no longer exists. Its role is now held by the National Guard.
 
why was the 2nd Amendment written? to provide for the arming of the citizen-Militia, which was spelled out in Article 1 Section 8 of the USC, and further codified in the Militia Act of 1792.

It wasn't written so folks could have guns to shoot rabbits & trees. It was to make sure the citizen militia was armed and ready to be called up by the GOVERNMENT to help put down rebellion, insurrection, etc etc.

The Militia is no more. It no longer exists. Its role is now held by the National Guard.


you still have the ninth and tenth amendments to deal with even if your claim is accurate
 
you still have the ninth and tenth amendments to deal with even if your claim is accurate
Considering the grammer fail of most gun grabbers to not even realize that the comma denotes two thoughts in the second amendment that is a huge "if".
 
so you agree with me the federal government's power to regulate arms is rather specious. especially after the gun has been sold to a retail dealer by a wholesaler. I can only buy handguns from a dealer in the same state as me-why should that transaction be subject to federal regulation since the retail sale is not interstate commerce?...

I guess one might argue that once something becomes under the jurisdiction of inter-state commerce, it stays under that jurisdiction.

Or, one could say that once it crosses state lines, its regulated by the Feds until its sold retail. Then it goes back under the jurisdiction of the state.
 
um.......dumb.

I agree, it is a dumb argument. It is not my argument, it is your argument. You are saying in your post that if congress can regulate interstate travel, particularly boat travel, which is not a right, then Congress can regulate interstate possession. Which is an inalienable right. I submit that they are two different arguments. One Constitutional, the other legislative.
In any event, the Federal government has given up a lot of their so called power to regulate to firearms across the state lines. Each state has its own gun laws, and the federal laws are limited. It is impossible to carry a sidearm across the US without violating state and local laws, even for federally licensed concealed carriers. Shouldn't I have the right, based on my compliance with federal laws and the 2nd amendment, to carry a weapon in any state or locality?
 
you still have the ninth and tenth amendments to deal with even if your claim is accurate

its silly to act as if the 2nd Amendment was written within a contextual vacuum. It clearly was a follow-up to Article 1 Section 8 of the USC, and preceded the Militia Act of 1792. I believe one must read them all within the context of the whole. They all deal with the same issue, do they not? Guns, the Militia, and whatnot.
 
Considering the grammer fail of most gun grabbers to not even realize that the comma denotes two thoughts in the second amendment that is a huge "if".

I think if anyone suggested that you have to be a member of a church in order to exercise your right to free speech,freedom of the press,peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances then that person would be laughed at.
 
I agree, it is a dumb argument. It is not my argument, it is your argument. You are saying in your post that if congress can regulate interstate travel, particularly boat travel, which is not a right...

oh, but it IS a right. we have the right, as American citizens, to travel from state to state, without any passports, tolls, or whatever. traveling from point A to point B, within our own nation, is indeed a right. A fundamental one.
 
I think if anyone suggested that you have to be a member of a church in order to exercise your right to free speech,freedom of the press,peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances then that person would be laughed at.
Laughed at and laughed out of public for a while, they would be so ridiculed for that they would qualify for a PTSD assessment.
 
The courts have heard this often, and not once has it ruled that we cannot regulate weapons. So, you are likely quite wrong about that. As for you militia argument, I'll try not to be too harsh, but it is one sentence. The first part of the sentence cannot be seen as spearate from the second part. The first part sets up the context for the second part. While there is disagreement on what regulate means, there is no disagreement on the context.

So you have to be a member of the church in order to be in the press,to exercise freedom of speech, to petition grievances to the government or that the right to peaceably assembly only applies to those in a church?
 
so you agree with me the federal government's power to regulate arms is rather specious. especially after the gun has been sold to a retail dealer by a wholesaler. I can only buy handguns from a dealer in the same state as me-why should that transaction be subject to federal regulation since the retail sale is not interstate commerce?


I will tell you why; because the assholes who engaged in outcome based "analysis (FDR wanted to ban mobsters from having machine guns so they started with a ban and worked backwards) to regulate firearms were not intellectually honest nor interested in following the constitution

Where was the gun you bought in Ohio manufactured? Ohio? No? How did it get to Ohio? Interstate commerce? Thought so.

At any rate, whether you agree with it or not, commerce clause analysis is what it is. Likewise, the SC recently held that the 2d Amendment provides for a private right of ownership -- not just for the purpose of state militias. I don't particularly agree with that interpretation, but I do recognize that the Supreme Court establishes the law of the land and it's what we have to live with, unless or until they reverse themselves. Oddly enough, I don't see you complaining about THIS conservative SC decision, which overtuned more than a century of precedent. Hypocrite much?
 
why was the 2nd Amendment written? to provide for the arming of the citizen-Militia, which was spelled out in Article 1 Section 8 of the USC, and further codified in the Militia Act of 1792.

It wasn't written so folks could have guns to shoot rabbits & trees. It was to make sure the citizen militia was armed and ready to be called up by the GOVERNMENT to help put down rebellion, insurrection, etc etc.

The Militia is no more. It no longer exists. Its role is now held by the National Guard.

If we were to revisit the issue, look at intent, reassess the need for that today, I doubt the amendment would hold today. I'm not advocating getting rid of guns, but it is time to end this debate by rewriting it to say what we really do today.
 
So you have to be a member of the church in order to be in the press,to exercise freedom of speech, to petition grievances to the government or that the peaceably assembly only applies to those in a church?


if you couldn't keep and bear arms until after you joined the militia that had been mustered and appointed officers it would be pretty worthless. the idea of a militia is sort of like a volunteer fire department. can you imagine if a volunteer firefighter would have to go to the firehouse when the alarm sounded, get training in how to fight fires and issued equipment there before going to the fire?
 
...Likewise, the SC recently held that the 2d Amendment provides for a private right of ownership -- not just for the purpose of state militias. I don't particularly agree with that interpretation, but I do recognize that the Supreme Court establishes the law of the land and it's what we have to live with, unless or until they reverse themselves....

it was a great example of right-wing judicial activism.
 
This is what bothers me about conservatives. Anything they disagree with judicial activism, and anything they like is proper judgement. Why you can't see the problem with that is mind boggling. The SCOTUS is doing their job. When they do, it means one side will be please and the other unhappy. There is no way around that. Sorry.


No, I can see where you would have that opinion because in the past I probably have taken those sorts of stances, but now, I can see that both sides of the argument are committing activism when they politically rule. The bottom line is that they need to get back to the Constitution and stop with this.

j-mac
 
So you have to be a member of the church in order to be in the press,to exercise freedom of speech, to petition grievances to the government or that the right to peaceably assembly only applies to those in a church?

James, you can do better than this silliness. Your comparison simply doesn't work. You're going to have make one that actually compares if you want a reasoned response.
 
if you couldn't keep and bear arms until after you joined the militia that had been mustered and appointed officers it would be pretty worthless. the idea of a militia is sort of like a volunteer fire department. can you imagine if a volunteer firefighter would have to go to the firehouse when the alarm sounded, get training in how to fight fires and issued equipment there before going to the fire?

Congress, in the Militia Act of 1792, called for all white males between the ages of 18 & 45, to be part of the Militia.

that's a lot of folks.
 
Back
Top Bottom