• 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

jakiejakester said:
You're putting words in my mouth. I never wrote that I distrust citizens with guns. I wrote that I see no need to have such high powered weaponry and high quantity magazines and that having them has caused and will again cause more people to die than if they didn't exist. I've written this multiple times in this thread yet you accuse me of writing something that I never did and worse, you believe what you wrote over what I wrote about my beliefs.
Click to expand...

well that is the obvious conclusion of your rants

you don't trust honest people to own the same guns our public servants use to protect themselves from criminals.

and I really have no use for someone who probably knows less about guns now than I did at age 8, telling me what I NEED or what millions of other people who are well skilled in the use of small arms need based on your fear of either us or your extrapolation of criminal intentional misuse of guns they cannot legally own to us
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
And as a private citizens how many times in your life have you had to "fight criminals who have all sorts of weapons"?
Click to expand...

I shot a mugger.

and you can ask the same question of cops-the vast majority of whom will never draw their weapon on a criminal
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
read some more Capster78 wants all guns banned
several others won't say it but that's what they clearly want
Click to expand...
I did not read all 870+ plus postings but the way you wrote it is that many or most people who are pro gun control want what you wrote when in fact you can only name one person....that's not fair IMHO.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
well that is the obvious conclusion of your rants

you don't trust honest people to own the same guns our public servants use to protect themselves from criminals.

and I really have no use for someone who probably knows less about guns now than I did at age 8, telling me what I NEED or what millions of other people who are well skilled in the use of small arms need based on your fear of either us or your extrapolation of criminal intentional misuse of guns they cannot legally own to us
Click to expand...
Is it OK if you would post replies to my posts, which you freely choose to do without attacking me personally? My "rants" are my opinion and not rants. I always feel that the person that I'm debating is losing the debate when they have to resort to petty personal attacks. I see it as "I can't prove my point intellectually so instead I'll put you down and discredit you."

You have a point of view that I severely disagree with but I do not think that I should attack your position as "moronic" or "rants" etc. You can always put me on your ignore list if my "rants" make you write so many angry words against me?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
This would be a highly unenlightened comment.

First: You raise the notion that the Second Amendment does not "suggest" .. blah . blah .. blah. Well, would you care to point out the words in the Constitution that go to the "seperation of Church and State", a favorite chorus of such as yourself ? It ain't there, is it !!! As most of us know, it is in a letter written by Jefferson well after the fact, but which libs seem to include as Constitutional gospel ! With that as the invite, let us look further at Jefferson.
Click to expand...

I have never claimed the words "seperation of church and state" was in the constitution. Nice straw man, but major fail.

As others have already pointed out the short-sightedness of your assertion, namely that the right to bear arms shall not be infinged, let us also look at the words of the same Jefferson on this topic:

You should quit before you fall further behind. ;)
Click to expand...

Oddly, you have not even addressed my point, which was that Mr. Nick interpreted the Constitution instead of reading it literally. Why is this so difficult for you guys to comprehend? He is in fact being hypocritical in saying it should be read literally, while he is interpreting it when he chooses.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
I did not read all 870+ plus postings but the way you wrote it is that many or most people who are pro gun control want what you wrote when in fact you can only name one person....that's not fair IMHO.
Click to expand...

those who think some restrictions on honest people will stop some criminals don't take much convincing to believe complete bans on honest people will stop even more crime

its a faith based acceptance that Crime control is advanced by gun control
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
That is hugely naive. James Madison is credited as the "Father of the Constitution", and yet the defining case where the SCOTUS took oversight power over the Laws passed by Congress, aka "Judicial Review" was "Marbury vs. Madison". When reading the intent of the Founders, and a great start is the Federalist Papers, it is clear that their intent has been warped over time, and that a strong argument could be made that they would object with vigor to many of the liberal machinations of SCOTUS since they drew it up !
Click to expand...

James Madfison also objected to a specific bill of rights, so if he had gotten his way no second amendment. Just sayin'....
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
Is it OK if you would post replies to my posts, which you freely choose to do without attacking me personally? My "rants" are my opinion and not rants. I always feel that the person that I'm debating is losing the debate when they have to resort to petty personal attacks. I see it as "I can't prove my point intellectually so instead I'll put you down and discredit you."

You have a point of view that I severely disagree with but I do not think that I should attack your position as "moronic" or "rants" etc. You can always put me on your ignore list if my "rants" make you write so many angry words against me?
Click to expand...

I am being honest-when you claim to know what I need that is an assertion you have more knowledge as to what I need or can use than I do. That is rather arrogant wouldn't you say

I would never tell you what you need for self defense nor will I pretend to. Now if you were to tell me where you live, the composition of your home's outer walls, the longest possible distance of engagement, the number of people in your dwelling, the number of entrances and where your children (if any) are located I can probably give you a very good bit of advice as to what would be the BEST CHOICE for you to have for home and self defense
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
James Madfison also objected to a specific bill of rights, so if he had gotten his way no second amendment. Just sayin'....
Click to expand...

true, his position was premised on the assumption underlying the Constitution-that the government was given only SPECIFIC powers and anything not specifically granted to the federal government was reserved to the people and the several states. that is why the supreme court noted in the Cruikshank decision (1870s IIRC) that the second amendment GRANTS no rights-merely recognized existing rights

sadly dishonest lower court judges-state and federal-used the words of that case to hold that the second amendment therefore granted no individual rights and therefore none existed

that was the basis of stevens' pathetic dissent in HELLER-he argued that the CoA decisions based on a dishonest and completely wrong interpretation of supreme court case law should be respected as precedent
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
true, his position was premised on the assumption underlying the Constitution-that the government was given only SPECIFIC powers and anything not specifically granted to the federal government was reserved to the people and the several states. that is why the supreme court noted in the Cruikshank decision (1870s IIRC) that the second amendment GRANTS no rights-merely recognized existing rights

sadly dishonest lower court judges-state and federal-used the words of that case to hold that the second amendment therefore granted no individual rights and therefore none existed

that was the basis of stevens' pathetic dissent in HELLER-he argued that the CoA decisions based on a dishonest and completely wrong interpretation of supreme court case law should be respected as precedent
Click to expand...

Correct, he was not agianst the rights, but felt there was no need to enumerate them. I know my constitutional history, probably better than those I am arguing against here.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
Correct, he was not agianst the rights, but felt there was no need to enumerate them. I know my constitutional history, probably better than those I am arguing against here.
Click to expand...

without commenting on others specifically, I will note that (and this is coming from a guy who has given an endowed lecture at an accredited law school on this topic) that yes you indeed are better versed in this subject than many
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
I don't understand? This is the USA, not Cuba, Russia etc. Your point would only have validity if they had the US Constitution which they do not and never will.

Comparing our government to Cambodia et al is a giant misdirection and in my mind has no validity.
Click to expand...

Your lack of understanding prevents you from learning anything. A short coming common among our leftist brothers and sisters.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
those who think some restrictions on honest people will stop some criminals don't take much convincing to believe complete bans on honest people will stop even more crime

its a faith based acceptance that Crime control is advanced by gun control
Click to expand...
You know there are millions of us who are pro-gun control but not based on faith. I also think the vast majority are in the world of reality and know that total bans are a fantasy that will never, ever happen.

Banning AR type weapons and large magazines is not total gun control and people are not asking for that - I've not seen one national politician come out with that stance. How do you account for the low crime and murder rate in NYC since strict gun registration was enacted? With 9 million or so residents it seems that very few of my neighbors own guns yet we're safe and the murder rate here continues to decrease dramatically, how come?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
James Madfison also objected to a specific bill of rights, so if he had gotten his way no second amendment. Just sayin'....
Click to expand...

He initially felt it unnecessary, not the only short-sighted assumption made by the Founders in not anticipating the over-reach of later governement. Regardless, he eventually endorsed it fully.

Madison and the Bill of Rights

Back to the topic at hand. The literal translation of the 2nd Amendment is that the right to bear arms will not be impeded. Just as the First Amendment says not a damn thing about seperation of church and state.

Most Liberals struggle mightily with the above two assertions of fact. If you do not, than you are the rare one. ;)
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
You know there are millions of us who are pro-gun control but not based on faith. I also think the vast majority are in the world of reality and know that total bans are a fantasy that will never, ever happen.

Banning AR type weapons and large magazines is not total gun control and people are not asking for that - I've not seen one national politician come out with that stance. How do you account for the low crime and murder rate in NYC since strict gun registration was enacted? With 9 million or so residents it seems that very few of my neighbors own guns yet we're safe and the murder rate here continues to decrease dramatically, how come?
Click to expand...

Chicago also has strict gun control. 'splain please.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
He initially felt it unnecessary, not the only short-sighted assumption made by the Founders in not anticipating the over-reach of later governement. Regardless, he eventually endorsed it fully.

Madison and the Bill of Rights
Click to expand...

That is correct, yes.

Back to the topic at hand. The literal translation of the 2nd Amendment is that the right to bear arms will not be impeded. Just as the First Amendment says not a damn thing about seperation of church and state.

Most Liberals struggle mightily with the above two assertions of fact. If you do not, than you are the rare one. ;)
Click to expand...

Actually, you are interpreting the second amendment, in this case by removing part of it. A literal reading would be one that includes the whole of the amendment, and nothing more than the amendment. And to the point I raised, nowhere in the second amendment does it say nor imply that the intention of the amendment was to guard against the government itself, which is what Mr. Nick claimed, while saying that interpretation was bad. I once again am not sure why people are having such a hard time with this. I am merely pointing out a posters hypocrisy.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
A literal reading would be one that includes the whole of the amendment, and nothing more than the amendment.
Click to expand...

He said it was a literal translation not a literal reading. If you're going to be snarky, you should at least try not to be utterly wrong.

And in view of Heller, what is said about the second amendment is entirely correct.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
That is correct, yes.



Actually, you are interpreting the second amendment, in this case by removing part of it. A literal reading would be one that includes the whole of the amendment, and nothing more than the amendment. And to the point I raised, nowhere in the second amendment does it say nor imply that the intention of the amendment was to guard against the government itself, which is what Mr. Nick claimed, while saying that interpretation was bad. I once again am not sure why people are having such a hard time with this. I am merely pointing out a posters hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

While I would agree with that part of your distinction which I bolded, I also see it as a moot point, except for the sake of trivial debate. The better argument is that the Founders primary reason for the Second Amendment was precisely to defend the First Amendment against a tyranical government. Which sets the bar very high in interpreting the nature of the extent which they felt the average citizen should be able to arm themselves .... essentailly to the same extent as the government !

I will parapharase, but I laugh at our just reelected Senator down here, Bill Nelson, who recently said "assault weapons are for killing, not hunting". Well, "No $hit Bill Nelson". And so what ? If I must arm myself against a tyranical government, then killing is the tack at hand. Unfortunately, many liberals think he makes sense, and that somehow we were intended to only have squirrel rifles, if that.

I do not think that the poster you took issue with was being at all hypocritical. They were merely pointing out the highest intended application of Second Amendment rights. Which is not hunting. Not protecting your property from intrusion. It is to be able to take arms against your government. That is the biggest umbrella, under which all other things have room. And it is exactly as our Founders intended, having taken arms against a tyrannical government themselves.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Guy Incognito said:
He said it was a literal translation not a literal reading. If you're going to be snarky, you should at least try not to be utterly wrong.
Click to expand...

His views are neither a literal translation, not a literal reading. If you are going to be snarky, you should at least try not to be utterly wrong.

And in view of Heller, what is said about the second amendment is entirely correct.
Click to expand...

This has exactly jack and **** to do with what I have said. Why bring it up in reply to my post?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
While I would agree with that part of your distinction which I bolded, I also see it as a moot point, except for the sake of trivial debate. The better argument is that the Founders primary reason for the Second Amendment was precisely to defend the First Amendment against a tyranical government. Which sets the bar very high in interpreting the nature of the extent which they felt the average citizen should be able to arm themselves .... essentailly to the same extent as the government !

I will parapharase, but I laugh at our just reelectd Senator down here, Bill Nelson, who recently said "assault weapons are for killing, not hunting". Well, "No $hit Bill Nelson". And so what ? If I must arm myself against a tyranical government, then killing is the tack at hand.

I do not think that the poster you took issue with was being at all hypocritical. They were merely pointing out the highest intended application of Second Amendment rights. Which is not hunting. Not protecting your property from intrusion. It is to be able to take arms against your government. That is the biggest umbrella, under which all other things have room. And it is exactly as our Founders intended, having taken arms against a tyrannical government themselves.
Click to expand...

If you are going to do that, and I have no problem if you want to, then you have to stop the nonsense about not interpreting the constitution, since that is exactly what it takes to arrive at your conclusion. The Second Amendment, in no way, shape, nor form, refers to defending against the state, but in fact refers to defending the state.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
Actually, you are interpreting the second amendment, in this case by removing part of it. A literal reading would be one that includes the whole of the amendment, and nothing more than the amendment. And to the point I raised, nowhere in the second amendment does it say nor imply that the intention of the amendment was to guard against the government itself....
Click to expand...
...the security of a free state...
This statement is plenary, covering all possible threats to said security, which then necessarily includes a tyrannical federal government.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
If you are going to do that, and I have no problem if you want to, then you have to stop the nonsense about not interpreting the constitution, since that is exactly what it takes to arrive at your conclusion. The Second Amendment, in no way, shape, nor form, refers to defending against the state, but in fact refers to defending the state.
Click to expand...

You have gone and made an assumption, while saying that assumptions should not be made. You seem to have forgotten that at such as Lexington and Concord, it was militias that fired upon "the state". Militias are not the state. Never have been. They are the defenders of the local common.

As to defending against the state, just as with "separation of church and state", we go to the writings of the Founders beyond the exact Constitution. It helps if we go to their own explanations of the intent behind the Constitution, such as much that was written about the Second Amendment, and not to their otherwise personal opinions. It makes the Federalist Papers so credible. Which was the point of my "seperation of church and state", embraced by liberals, but otherwise not found in explanation of the First Amendment. Its that selective nonsense that liberals so often do.

TO be clear, you are completely wrong about the Second Amendment, both literally, and when examining its underlying intent.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

H. Lee White said:
...the security of a free state...
This statement is plenary, covering all possible threats to said security, which then necessarily includes a tyrannical federal government.
Click to expand...

Again, you are adding words and meanings not contained in the second amendment. Why can you not admit that what you are doing is interpreting?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
Again, you are adding words and meanings not contained in the second amendment. Why can you not admit that what you are doing is interpreting?
Click to expand...

At the end of the day the only thing that matters is that the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution that way. I believe you were just extolling your knowledge of constitutional law a few pages back, so perhaps you can tell us what legal effect that has on the second amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom