• 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!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Ya couldn't find a Barbie doll video to illustrate your point?:mrgreen:

Would that have made it more comfortable for you??? :shock:

Its really a difficult concept...rights of 'the people'...10 amendments expressing individual rights...err...no...9...with a 'government' right tucked in there at #2...with the words 'the people' used identically to the others but only as a means to confuse and obfuscate....

Never have understood why so many people are so bunged up about the 2nd anyway. The laws pretty much ban ownership of firearms by criminals...so...its not like we have to worry about criminals getting their hands on them. Chicago...DC...the laws work FABulously...just like those drug bans...
 
How in the world is it harder exactly?

To get a liscenses one must show a proof if legal presense, identity, state residence, pass a safety course, and spend 9 months (if prior to 19) or 30 days (if older than 19) on a learning permit. The states themselves provide courses on safety, preperation, and that help fulfill requirements in public education in classes that count for school credit.

What is more difficult about obtaining a gun than that?

Not to mention only one of the two is actually a constitutional right.

i think you just won my argument for me.. (if there even was one)

i need only fill out the paperwork and wait a few days to buy a gun. hardly anything of effort when compared to getting a drivers liscense.
additionally, every few years im required to renew my liscense.. a few more years and im required to be tested again.

perhaps youre not getting my point or ive really missed yours. otherwise it seems we're in agreement.
 
I will use visuals to simplify things for this crowd.




Yeah, I've seen that before. Just goes to show Penn and Teller can be just as guilty of bull**** as the people they debunk.

And, look, I'm working on it, I've been spending the last couple hours reading and it's bearing out my argument. But I'll admit I've been doing some sloppy arguing of my own.

The 2nd Amendment does not create a "collective" right, nor was this its original intention. I was mistaken about this. However, the thrust of what I've been saying is substantially correct. The "collective" right theory is in fact bunk, but the idea that the individual right is tied inextricably in to the militia clause is not. Simply put, the original intent of the second amendment was to create a right of the people (individually) to keep and bear arms in defense of liberty against tyranny, a right that existed as against Congress. It was not intended to create an individual right to self-defense, hunting or other sport, etc. This is the recent invention of activist judges. This view is borne out by the original intent of the framers, Madison and Jefferson in particular, and is supported by the weight of precedent and scholarship through the 19th century. More to come later in a fuller response with citations.
 
And, look, I'm working on it, I've been spending the last couple hours reading and it's bearing out my argument. But I'll admit I've been doing some sloppy arguing of my own.
Glad to see you can admit when you are wrong.

The 2nd Amendment does not create a "collective" right, nor was this its original intention. I was mistaken about this. However, the thrust of what I've been saying is substantially correct. The "collective" right theory is in fact bunk, but the idea that the individual right is tied inextricably in to the militia clause is not.
And, when you read Heller, you'll see that the court took this into consideration, at length.

Simply put, the original intent of the second amendment was to create a right of the people (individually) to keep and bear arms in defense of liberty against tyranny, a right that existed as against Congress. It was not intended to create an individual right to self-defense, hunting or other sport, etc
The collective right to self-defense is necessarily based upon and linked to the individual right to self-defense, as a collection of individuals cannot have a right that each of the individuals of that collective do not individuallty have, seperate from that collective.

This is the recent invention of activist judges
Not in any way.
 
Glad to see you can admit when you are wrong.
Naturally.

And, when you read Heller, you'll see that the court took this into consideration, at length.


The collective right to self-defense is necessarily based upon and linked to the individual right to self-defense, as a collection of individuals cannot have a right that each of the individuals of that collective do not individuallty have, seperate from that collective.
I don't disagree with your reasoning. It is logical, but the trouble is it isn't based on history or original intent. What you're engaging in in the above reasoning, just as Scalia did in Heller (which I have read) is the same sort of "activism" that Scalia so often decries (when it leads to conclusions that he doesn't support politically, that is). I don't have any other problem with your reasoning than the fact that it is ahistorical. The right to bear arms in self defense just isn't there.

Not in any way.
Uh, you got some sort of argument for that?
 
Naturally.


I don't disagree with your reasoning. It is logical, but the trouble is it isn't based on history or original intent. What you're engaging in in the above reasoning, just as Scalia did in Heller (which I have read) is the same sort of "activism" that Scalia so often decries (when it leads to conclusions that he doesn't support politically, that is). I don't have any other problem with your reasoning than the fact that it is ahistorical. The right to bear arms in self defense just isn't there.


Uh, you got some sort of argument for that?

The right to bear arms in self defense is not there in actual words but the right to self defense is a well established legal doctrine in every state. We don't need a gun for self defense but it helps.
 
The right to bear arms in self defense is not there in actual words but the right to self defense is a well established legal doctrine in every state. We don't need a gun for self defense but it helps.

Do you have anything to back this up? Self-defense as a "right" is different from self defense as an affirmative defense to a crime. Moreover, the second amendment was never originally intended as against the states, only against the federal government.
 
Do you have anything to back this up? Self-defense as a "right" is different from self defense as an affirmative defense to a crime. Moreover, the second amendment was never originally intended as against the states, only against the federal government.

Ay carumba, please no more semantics.
 
I don't disagree with your reasoning. It is logical, but the trouble is it isn't based on history or original intent.
Ok then...

You said:
Simply put, the original intent of the second amendment was to create a right of the people (individually) to keep and bear arms in defense of liberty against tyranny, a right that existed as against Congress. It was not intended to create an individual right to self-defense, hunting or other sport, etc
-Show- that the intention was to protect the right to arms for the defense of the collective to the full exclusion of the right to arms for the defense of the individual -- that is, that the full intent was to protect the right of the people to bear arms collectively for the defense of their state, counties and towns, but not at all for the individual defense of their farms, their houses, their families or themselves.

You have already agreed that my argument that necessarily links a collective right to an individual right is logically sound and that you do not have an issue with said reasonong; to prove the above you will, necessarily, have to show that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd did so under a presmise that, essentailly, does not make sense.
 
Ay carumba, please no more semantics.

What you dismiss as "semantics" is the very essence of this discussion, LA. Let me emphasize that I am also arguing in favor of an individual right to bear arms in self defense. But this difference between myself and Scalia is that I am concerned about maintaining intellectual integrity while I do this. The only way to accomplish a robust second amendment that unequivocally protects an individual right to bear arms for purposes other than militia-service is to expand the nature of the second amendment by means of "judicial activism" or else enact a new constitutional amendment to that effect.
 
Moreover, the second amendment was never originally intended as against the states, only against the federal government.
Nor was the 1st or 4th or 5th or 6th or...
The 14th changed all that, and the decision here incorporates the 2nd against the states just as prior decisions incorporated the other amendments.
 
Ok then...

You said:

-Show- that the intention was to protect the right to arms for the defense of the collective to the full exclusion of the right to arms for the defense of the individual -- that is, that the full intent was to protect the right of the people to bear arms collectively for the defense of their state, counties and towns, but not at all for the individual defense of their farms, their houses, their families or themselves.

You have already agreed that my argument that necessarily links a collective right to an individual right is logically sound and that you do not have an issue with said reasonong; to prove the above you will, necessarily, have to show that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd did so under a presmise that, essentailly, does not make sense.

Goobie, I'm working on it, research takes time. I thought you already agreed to cease the gotcha-debate stuff and give me 24 hours.
 
Nor was the 1st or 4th or 5th or 6th or...
The 14th changed all that, and the decision here incorporates the 2nd against the states just as prior decisions incorporated the other amendments.

You're right the 14th did change all that, but are we talking about the "original intent" or not? You need to marshall your argument better, because it is in danger of becoming incoherent.
 
You're right the 14th did change all that, but are we talking about the "original intent" or not?
The point is that since the constitution was actually changed by the 14th amendment, the origiinal intent for the BoR to apply only to the actions of federal government is meaningless, just as it is when considering any other part of the constitution that was changed thru the amendment process.

No one holds the position that original intent superceeds subsequent amendments.
 
No one holds the position that original intent superceeds subsequent amendments.

But if the individual right to self defense was never there in the first place, how can it incorporate against the states?
 
Goobie, I'm working on it, research takes time. I thought you already agreed to cease the gotcha-debate stuff and give me 24 hours.
I did - I was, however, responding to -your- responses.
 
But if the individual right to self defense was never there in the first place, how can it incorporate against the states?
The 2nd was incoroprated against the states thru the 14th.
-You- are presently working to show that the 2nd was never intended to protect the right to arms in the act of individual self-defense.
 
I did - I was, however, responding to -your- responses.

Right, with a demand that I cite my sources. I had already said that I was working on it. And I'm going to continue this research and support my argument whether you like it or not. But I thought I had a gentleman's agreement from you that I could take the time to do my research before providing citations. Do I not? Rest assured that citations will be provided in due course.
 
The 2nd was incoroprated against the states thru the 14th.
-You- are presently working to show that the 2nd was never intended to protect the right to arms in the act of individual self-defense.

Thanks for repeating what I already said. I accept your concession.
 
Right, with a demand that I cite my sources. I had already said that I was working on it. And I'm going to continue this research and support my argument whether you like it or not. But I thought I had a gentleman's agreement from you that I could take the time to do my research before providing citations. Do I not? Rest assured that citations will be provided in due course.
Well then, I suggest you then refrain from making additional claims in your responses - or, for that matter, responding at all - until you have those cites.

In proving that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd did so under a premise that makes no logical sense, you have a LOT to do. Get busy.
 
Thanks for repeating what I already said. I accept your concession.
There was no concession; you have to show that your premise is sound before your statement has any effect.
 
Well then, I suggest you then refrain from making additional claims in your responses - or, for that matter, responding at all - until you have those cites.

In proving that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd did so under a premise that makes no logical sense, you have a LOT to do. Get busy.

Nonsense. You have provided no citations for your own assertions so far, and frankly your behavior has been unnecessarily rude and combative, to the point where I must doubt your objectivity in the matter. My argument at length will appear shortly, with citations, but you can consider our discussion at an end. Good day.
 
Nonsense. You have provided no citations for your own assertions so far, and frankly your behavior has been unnecessarily rude and combative, to the point where I must doubt your objectivity in the matter. My argument at length will appear shortly, with citations, but you can consider our discussion at an end. Good day.
Combative? Rude? Because I dont simply take what you say as fact and expect you to back up your claims?
Pretty thin skin you have there, sport. Make sure you tuck that tail in tight.
 
Moreover, the second amendment was never originally intended as against the states, only against the federal government.

This is where you have a legitimate arugment about Judicial activism. The bill of rights was intended as a limitation upon the Federal government. The 14th allowed them to be "incorporated" to the states.

There is a great deal of irony in this whole debate.

Originally, the idea that the state or local governments would try to disarm their own citizens was a pretty absurd notion. They felt the greater risk of this would be from the federal government, not state and local governments.

Where the irony comes in is that the 2nd was, in part, about preventing the Feds from having too much authority over the States and the people. The presumption, as described in Federalist 46, was that an armed populous could combine to create a much larger fighting force than the Feds could gather (about 25 times larger) under the supervision of the State governments.

Incorporation, however, is a result of the Feds having too much authority over the states.

This is why this ruling has been tearing me up, personally. On one hand, I'm extatic that my rights are no longer being infringed by my local government. On the other hand, my anti-federalist inclination leads me to abor the ruling as it is just a further example of federal authority extending further in scope and the authority of th estates being superceded by federal authority.

I've admitted to having a hypocritical stance on this particular issue in the past. If I thought for a second that not incorporating the 2nd could result in de-incorporation of oter ammendmets and result in a reduction in federal authority, I'd be more than willing to forgo my individual right to bare arms for the greater good of the nation (Obviously as someone who claims to hold Anti-federalists views, I believe that a strong central government is generally detrimental.)

But I realize that this isn't going to happen at this point. It's too far gone and there are too few people who hold views like mine. Even your "extreme" small-government types aren't nearly as extreme about it as I am.

So I basically admit that I'm being a hypocrite on this particular subject. As I have in the past. My thinking is that if my worldview has no chance, I might as well try to keep my individual rights from being infringed in the process.

And there's no doubt that being born and raised in Chicago, and still living here, is the main factor in my hypocricy. I know I'd have more problems with the ruling if it didn't give me back my rights directly. So I reconcile that by simply admitting to my hypocricy, and explaining my rasoning for willingly engaging in hypocricy.
 
Back
Top Bottom