• 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!

NRA Newtown response [W:818]

Re: NRA Newtown response

it is always interesting to read the posts of those claiming various degrees of understanding the Constitution and what it means. Great to see the questions asking for where in the Constitution does it say....

But these scholars seem to be ignorant of the other half of the Heller decision. Written by Justice Scalia, the so-called intellectual anchor of the conservative wing of the Court, he found where the 2nd Amendment can be restricted without amending it. He said something along the lines of the Right to bear doesn't mean whatever, whenever, where ever. He does point out the decision the court handed down in Heller doesn't mean the mentally ill or felons now can purchase, carry and use firearms.

I'd say those wanting to know 'where in the Constitution does it say...' I'd direct them to Justice Scalia...
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
Where we disagree is that I do not fear our government the way some others here do. I can't ever envision having to own a gun to fend off an attack against my government.

I'm not afraid nor am I afraid for my children and my loved ones and friends. In theory I live in the most likely place in America to feel afraid from some sort of attack yet I feel protected.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the Cubans, Russians, Germans, Jews, Syrians, Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Chinese, Rwandans, Ugandans, Bulgarians, Bosnians, Serbians, Hungarians, Irish, Scottish, British, French, Argentenians, Chileans, El Salvadorans, Nicarauguans, Panamanians, Mexicans, Venezualans...

Tell them that there's nothing to fear from the government and that there's no need for any safegaurds to be put in place to protect the people from the government. All those countries have two things in common...care to guess what those two things are?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
Where we disagree is that I do not fear our government the way some others here do. I can't ever envision having to own a gun to fend off an attack against my government.

I'm not afraid nor am I afraid for my children and my loved ones and friends. In theory I live in the most likely place in America to feel afraid from some sort of attack yet I feel protected.
Click to expand...

Just because you feel content with the government doesn't make our government any less evil than it already is. As a libertarian, and an individual educated with vast amounts of history I can tell you that our government is more than capable of turning the US into North Korea or China in progressive fashion... Obviously the first attack in that process will be to disarm US citizens and remove all defense from the authoritarian scheme.

The simple fact there are lawmakers out there that want to ban guns should be a big wake up call.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

notquiteright said:
it is always interesting to read the posts of those claiming various degrees of understanding the Constitution and what it means. Great to see the questions asking for where in the Constitution does it say....

But these scholars seem to be ignorant of the other half of the Heller decision. Written by Justice Scalia, the so-called intellectual anchor of the conservative wing of the Court, he found where the 2nd Amendment can be restricted without amending it. He said something along the lines of the Right to bear doesn't mean whatever, whenever, where ever. He does point out the decision the court handed down in Heller doesn't mean the mentally ill or felons now can purchase, carry and use firearms.

I'd say those wanting to know 'where in the Constitution does it say...' I'd direct them to Justice Scalia...
Click to expand...

With the exception of the where ever and the whenever, no one else is sayng otherwise. Unless you can show me the post where someone is arguing that exploding projectiles, fired from indirect fire weapons should be legal. Can you?

In fact, if there was any evidence that gun bans work, there wouldn't be an argument. But, let's remember that the Columbine massacre happened three years after the last "assault rifle" ban and magazine restriction.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

dirtpoorchris said:
So Obama gives criminals "assault weapons" and grenades and the NRA wants guards with inferior weapons... and you go "THIS CANNOT BE DISCUSSED LIKE THIS! New thread."
Click to expand...

It's racist to question The One. You know that.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
That's because the gun makers purposely decided to create new weapons that circumvented the law - they weaseled it so that they could continue to sell weapons of mass killing. If they had honored the law and accepted it's intention rather than doing whatever they could to get around it the law would have been more effective. BTW - can you show me where that law did not prevent lives from being saved? I keep hearing this Fox News / NRA talking point but I can't recall seeing non-partisan data supporting it.
Click to expand...

that's not accurate. the morons who passed the law were told they were making silly cosmetic distinctions that had no relevance such as making an "assault weapon" definition based on stuff like bayonet lugs, folding stocks and flash hiders. SO when those features caused a weapon to be banned the makers merely deleted them so they could sell their products

that is called COMPLYING WITH THE LAW

mass killing-why do cops carry those things then? I have no duty to prove your claims-you are the one who wants to Limit our rights-the burden is on you to PROVE that your infringing on our rights created massive improvements in public safety

YOU CANNOT
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Mr.Nick said:
The Second Amendment is in place to keep the government in check and to assure lawmakers obey and respect the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

So you do not believe in a literal interpretatrion of the constitution, since the Second Amendment does not state nor suggest that.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

notquiteright said:
it is always interesting to read the posts of those claiming various degrees of understanding the Constitution and what it means. Great to see the questions asking for where in the Constitution does it say....

But these scholars seem to be ignorant of the other half of the Heller decision. Written by Justice Scalia, the so-called intellectual anchor of the conservative wing of the Court, he found where the 2nd Amendment can be restricted without amending it. He said something along the lines of the Right to bear doesn't mean whatever, whenever, where ever. He does point out the decision the court handed down in Heller doesn't mean the mentally ill or felons now can purchase, carry and use firearms.

I'd say those wanting to know 'where in the Constitution does it say...' I'd direct them to Justice Scalia...
Click to expand...

I could care less.... It would be interesting to see how those same justices interpret a Dr. Seuss book.

Lawyers are lawyers and they over-think everything. The travesty of law is the fact history and reason have no role in law. I mean all anyone has to do to understand the Second Amendment is to understand theocracies and monarchies then it all comes into frame - however those ideas cannot be considered under law when making judgments.

In short the "slippery slope" philosophically exists, yet it is nothing more than philosophy, hence it is not admissible or could be never legally considered as a lawful argument -- yet it exists as "precedent."
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
So you do not believe in a literal interpretatrion of the constitution, since the Second Amendment does not state nor suggest that.
Click to expand...

Why do you think the 2nd Amendment is in place?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
So you do not believe in a literal interpretatrion of the constitution, since the Second Amendment does not state nor suggest that.
Click to expand...

technically true but many contemporaneous letters and notes of speeches indicated that fact
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
So you do not believe in a literal interpretatrion of the constitution, since the Second Amendment does not state nor suggest that.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights are quite blunt... Such writings don't need to be interpreted - especially given what the founding fathers were aiming at.

Our founding fathers clearly understood the dangers of a society ruled by a theocracy, monarchy or any authoritarian governance.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
technically true but many contemporaneous letters and notes of speeches indicated that fact
Click to expand...

Well, sorta. Some peopel had that view, but what was put into the constitution itself is not what Mr. Nick claims. You have to interpret to get that. Not very libertarian of him.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
It states why right in the amendment.
Click to expand...

but that is subject to several different interpretations.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Mr.Nick said:
The Bill of Rights are quite blunt... Such writings don't need to be interpreted - especially given what the founding fathers were aiming at.

Our founding fathers clearly understood the dangers of a society ruled by a theocracy, monarchy or any authoritarian governance.
Click to expand...

You are clearly interpreting the second amendment since nowhere does it claim or suggest that it's purpose is to defend against the government. So you claim it does not need to be interpreted, except by you apparently.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
You are clearly interpreting the second amendment since nowhere does it claim or suggest that it's purpose is to defend against the government. So you claim it does not need to be interpreted, except by you apparently.
Click to expand...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It clearly states that!
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
Ahhhhhhhhh....
Click to expand...

what does security of a free state mean

what we do know is that no part of the constitution said anything about the government regulating small arms. it only "gained that power" in 1934 when FDR tried to ban machine guns and his AG said that would be unconstitutional so he demanded they come up with a way to deter people from owning them
 
Mr.Nick said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It clearly states that!
Click to expand...

That is not what you claimed though. Let's go back and look at your claim:

Mr.Nick said:
The Second Amendment is in place to keep the government in check and to assure lawmakers obey and respect the Bill of Rights.

An infringement of that right may as well be a declaration of war by the government on its citizens.

The Second Amendment should be respected not loathed. Not to mention the strong majority of progressives could care less about an individual, yet they cry about guns that allegedly grow legs, walk themselves around and shoot people.
Click to expand...

Oddly, what you underlined and what you claimed are not the same thing. In fact, quite different. You interpreted...
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
what does security of a free state mean
Click to expand...

"A free state", being singular, would most likely refer to the US as a whole, just as a foreign state refers to a foreign country.

what we do know is that no part of the constitution said anything about the government regulating small arms. it only "gained that power" in 1934 when FDR tried to ban machine guns and his AG said that would be unconstitutional so he demanded they come up with a way to deter people from owning them
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to anything I am saying, nor am I contending with your points there.
 
Redress said:
That is not what you claimed though. Let's go back and look at your claim:



Oddly, what you underlined and what you claimed are not the same thing. In fact, quite different. You interpreted...
Click to expand...


No it's not - "regulated" means armed - one cannot interpret 21st (or even late 20th century) lingo with 18th century lingo.
 
Mr.Nick said:
No it's not - "regulated" means armed - one cannot interpret 21st (or even late 20th century) lingo with 18th century lingo.
Click to expand...

Which does not have anything to do with what you claimed. Diversion failed.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
"A free state", being singular, would most likely refer to the US as a whole, just as a foreign state refers to a foreign country.



Irrelevant to anything I am saying, nor am I contending with your points there.
Click to expand...

I know but I never pass up a chance to edify the ignorant wherever they may be lurking

its hard to have a free state when the people are disarmed-but you know that too

carry on:mrgreen:
 
Mr.Nick said:
I made no such "diversion."

Show me where you believe I did?
Click to expand...

I certainly did not make any claim on what "regulated" means in the context of the second amendment, nor does it have anything to do with your interpretation that you claim is not an interpretation. It is, therefore, an attempt to divert away from your saying no one should interpret, but that you in fact do just that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom