• 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

They've also generated an equal number of documents indicating the opposite. The commentary of the founders is only one part of determining the original meaning of the Constitution. I will have more on this by tomorrow so please bear with me Turtle.



Well, they would have the commerce clause authority to regulate guns traveling across state lines. Apart from that I would say that they haven't got any delegated power to regulate small arms, on an originalist reading, and guns that stay within the state are for the state to regulate as they see fit.

LOL that is funny. It was FDR's admnistration that stretched the commerce clause beyond all recognition. But do me a favor-find me all those documents that indicate the founders did not think the individual citizens had an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. I have researched this issue for more than 30 years, lectured several ABA law school bodies on the second amendment and I have yet to come across an "equal body" of contrary documents to the well known statements that pro gun scholars constantly post on the subject.
 
LOL that is funny. It was FDR's admnistration that stretched the commerce clause beyond all recognition. But do me a favor-find me all those documents that indicate the founders did not think the individual citizens had an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. I have researched this issue for more than 30 years, lectured several ABA law school bodies on the second amendment and I have yet to come across an "equal body" of contrary documents to the well known statements that pro gun scholars constantly post on the subject.

Thanks, I am working on it at the moment. When I say "equal body" I could be mistaken about that. Hang on a second and I'll get some of the quotations I am looking at right now. I'd love to pick you brain about this.
 
Thanks, I am working on it at the moment. When I say "equal body" I could be mistaken about that. Hang on a second and I'll get some of the quotations I am looking at right now. I'd love to pick you brain about this.

The best counter argument to the individual rights (the standard model) paradigm is not the pathetic "states rights" nonsense that the Brady Bunch and many racist judges (who didn't want blacks or "Papists" having handguns) concocted but rather the one brilliant and liberal Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar came up with

he noted it is an individual right that is exercised collectively-such as voting or more importantly, serving on a jury/ However he has conceded that in order to exercise the right in a collective militia action, people had to be able to own and train with guns but only their collective use was protected by the amendment Yet he cannot point to a proper federal delegation of power that would allow federal regulation

Anti Gun funded Ohio State Historian Saul Cornell (his center on gun issues is funded by the Joyce Foundation) tries to make a hybrid argument as well

unlike Amar who is intellectually honest, Cornell starts off with "how do I justify gun bans" and works backwards in an attempt to undercut the clear intent of the second.
 
They've also generated an equal number of documents indicating the opposite. The commentary of the founders is only one part of determining the original meaning of the Constitution. I will have more on this by tomorrow so please bear with me Turtle.



Well, they would have the commerce clause authority to regulate guns traveling across state lines. Apart from that I would say that they haven't got any delegated power to regulate small arms, on an originalist reading, and guns that stay within the state are for the state to regulate as they see fit.

Seeing how the right to keep and bear arms is a individual right and the government has not business infringing on that right then the commerce clause is irrelevant regarding the 2nd amendment.
 
I have yet to come across an "equal body" of contrary documents to the well known statements that pro gun scholars constantly post on the subject.

Ok, here's one:
Tench Coxe said:
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

He makes no mention of the right extending to self defense or hunting/sport. What do you make of it?
 
Last edited:
unlike Amar who is intellectually honest, Cornell starts off with "how do I justify gun bans" and works backwards in an attempt to undercut the clear intent of the second.

You see, that's just it. I recognize that the individual right to self defense is not there, and I am working backwards from a "how do I justify individual right to self defense." On an originalist interpretation, just like the right to privacy, the individual right to self defense just isn't there. The individual right to bear arms for the purpose of a militia for the collective defense against tyranny is there, and nothing more, as I see it. It will take more than originalism to bring about an intellectually honest account of the individual right to bear arms in self defense, and I would no more try to account for this right in terms of originalism than I would the right to privacy.
 
You see, that's just it. I recognize that the individual right to self defense is not there, and I am working backwards from a "how do I justify individual right to self defense." On an originalist interpretation, just like the right to privacy, the individual right to self defense just isn't there. The individual right to bear arms for the purpose of a militia for the collective defense against tyranny is there, and nothing more, as I see it. It will take more than originalism to bring about an intellectually honest account of the individual right to bear arms in self defense, and I would no more try to account for this right in terms of originalism than I would the right to privacy.

well given the founders believed that owning and keeping and bearing weapons was an inalienable right we really don't have to spend too much time worrying what the purpose one would own a gun for. Its like the right to speech-the issue is not what you say but that you have the right to say it

and yes, in the time the constitution was written, weapons were used for indivudal defense all the time-

against wild animals, "indians", and of course "redcoats"

Blackstone clearly recognized self defense as a fundamental right and that was influence
 
well given the founders believed that owning and keeping and bearing weapons was an inalienable right we really don't have to spend too much time worrying what the purpose one would own a gun for. Its like the right to speech-the issue is not what you say but that you have the right to say it

I agree, it is just like speech. And I think that on an honest originalist reading, the first amendment only protects political speech. It takes something above and beyond originalism to arrive at the robust first amendment we have today. The purpose does matter. Likewise, on an honest originalist reading the second amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of the militia.

By the way, did you get a chance to look at that Tench Coxe quotation on the previous page?
 
I agree, it is just like speech. And I think that on an honest originalist reading, the first amendment only protects political speech. It takes something above and beyond originalism to arrive at the robust first amendment we have today. The purpose does matter. Likewise, on an honest originalist reading the second amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of the militia.

By the way, did you get a chance to look at that Tench Coxe quotation on the previous page?

the difference is that (and I agree political speech not say advertising but the government has a want of power to restrict say advertising) that guns can be used for many legitimate uses including self defense, defense of the nation or of the local community (ie Militia) while POlitical speech is different than say Advertising.
 
Ok, here's one:


He makes no mention of the right extending to self defense or hunting/sport. What do you make of it?

The right is the right to keep and bear arms

not how you use them

we have legitimate laws restricting use (ie no hunting in the middle of downtown NY or no shooting high powered rifles in a municipal park)

the issue is ownership and possession

you may be confusing a necessary reason for owning an arm vs a sufficient one
 
the difference is that (and I agree political speech not say advertising but the government has a want of power to restrict say advertising) that guns can be used for many legitimate uses including self defense, defense of the nation or of the local community (ie Militia) while POlitical speech is different than say Advertising.

The relationship between protected political speech and unprotected advertising seems like a very apt analogy to the protected individual right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes and the unprotected keeping and bearing of arms in self defense. From a strictly originalist reading, neither of those things are what the Framers envisioned those amendments applying to. They just weren't contemplating the possibility that the government federal government would curtail those things, it wasn't on their radar. Their concerns were with the protection of the state from the federal government and its standing army. I'm not saying you can't read in the self defense right, or the advertising right for that matter. It might be something we want to do for the value of society. But that's not originalism.
 
The right is the right to keep and bear arms

not how you use them
[...]
you may be confusing a necessary reason for owning an arm vs a sufficient one

I disagree, the use is necessary to the right. This is just saying "it's a right to freedom of speech, not how you use speech, therefore advertising is protected."
 
I disagree, the use is necessary to the right. This is just saying "it's a right to freedom of speech, not how you use speech, therefore advertising is protected."

disagree all you want-find some founder who said Unless you serve in the militia the federal government shall have the power to deprive you of arms.

I bet you cannot
 
disagree all you want-find some founder who said Unless you serve in the militia the federal government shall have the power to deprive you of arms.

I bet you cannot

I don't have to. You can't find a founder who said, "unless your speech is political it won't be protected" either. They don't have to have said it specifically, we can infer it from context and history. How else are we supposed to determine original intent? It was just generally understood the first amendment was to protect political speech, because things like trumped up sedition charges were so common in the colonies. Likewise, they weren't thinking about protecting a right the self defense or hunting, because nobody was worried about those things being infringed. What they were worried about was a federal government curtailing the right of the people to put up an arm resistance to tyranny. You can't read anything more into it than that, or else you're projecting modern sensibilities onto it.
 
Last edited:
I don't have to. You can't find a founder who said, "unless your speech is political it won't be protected" either. They don't have to have said it specifically, we can infer it from context and history. How else are we supposed to determine original intent? It was just generally understood to be protecting political speech, because things like trumped up sedition charges were so common in the colonies. Likewise, they weren't thinking about protecting a right the self defense or hunting, because nobody was worried about those things being infringed. What they were worried about was a federal government curtailing the right of the people to put up an arm resistance to tyranny. You can't read anything more into it than that, or else you're projecting modern sensibilities onto it.

you are getting silly

the premise I have proffered is that gun ownership was seen by the founders as an inalienable INDIVIDUAL Right

you claimed that many founders did not believe that and I asked you to provide sources

speech is not relevant to this debate

the originalist position is that the second amendment recognizes an inalienable right that the founders assumed existed prior to the creation of the consitution. attempts to limit that right to specific uses is specious

I don't have much use for mental masturbation.

Those who wrote about arms who also were influential on the creation of the constitution clearly assumed it was a natural right

period
 
Those who wrote about arms who also were influential on the creation of the constitution clearly assumed it was a natural right

That's not the same as including it in the Constitution, now is it? What you dismiss as "mental masturbation" is really a very important issue of jurisprudence.

you claimed that many founders did not believe that and I asked you to provide sources

The Tench Coxe quotation is the first one I could find, there are numerous others. The only fair reading indicates that the militia use is the only use sanctioned under the original meaning of the second amendment, not self defense, although a weak argument can be made for self defense by appealing to some quotes from Jefferson, these are just as quickly rebutted by the number of times the Framers discussed the amendment without any talk of this right at all.

You say attempts to limit it to specific uses are specious, but now you're being silly. The second amendment doesn't protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank, now does it? Nor does it protect the right of ex-convicts to own guns. How can you honestly argue that is does not protect specific uses?
 
That's not the same as including it in the Constitution, now is it? What you dismiss as "mental masturbation" is really a very important issue of jurisprudence.



The Tench Coxe quotation is the first one I could find, there are numerous others. The only fair reading indicates that the militia use is the only use sanctioned under the original meaning of the second amendment, not self defense, although a weak argument can be made for self defense by appealing to some quotes from Jefferson, these are just as quickly rebutted by the number of times the Framers discussed the amendment without any talk of this right at all.

You say attempts to limit it to specific uses are specious, but now you're being silly. The second amendment doesn't protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank, now does it? Nor does it protect the right of ex-convicts to own guns. How can you honestly argue that is does not protect specific uses?


find those quotes. As I said, I have lectured on this subject, I have written on it and I know the subject. You confuse use with possession which is a normal mistake of many politicians. Life liberty and property (all rights) can be deprived through due process

you are now engaged in mental masturbation. I will retire and avoid the sticky mess
 
Last edited:
you are no engaged in mental masturbation. I will retire and avoid the sticky mess

Very funny. I'd argue that you're engage in an oversimplification that is motivated by an agenda. Why don't you show me some quotations where the Framers do acknowledge that the second amendment protects an individual right to self defense. And how about hunting and sport? I admit there is a case for self defense, but I think it is weak. But you're being completely dishonest if you're trying to make a case for hunting and sport uses.
 
Very funny. I'd argue that you're engage in an oversimplification that is motivated by an agenda. Why don't you show me some quotations where the Framers do acknowledge that the second amendment protects an individual right to self defense. And how about hunting and sport? I admit there is a case for self defense, but I think it is weak. But you're being completely dishonest if you're trying to make a case for hunting and sport uses.

last time

the founders assumed that individual citiizens had an inalienable right to keep and bear arms

period
 
last time

the founders assumed that individual citiizens had an inalienable right to keep and bear arms

period

Ah, no quotations, how convenient. Have a nice night.
 
As I said, I have lectured on this subject, I have written on it and I know the subject.

SlingBlade_ab3.jpg


It was the first image that popped into my head when you said: "I have lectured on this subject"

Watching far-righties trying to bull**** their way through a thread is funny...:lamo:lamo
 
It was the first image that popped into my head when you said: "I have lectured on this subject"

Watching far-righties trying to bull**** their way through a thread is funny...:lamo:lamo

I'm not sure what that picture is from, but I was thinking something similar to this myself. I have no reason not to take TurtleDude at his word that he "has lectured on it" but I really became dubious when he started to refer to a nuanced understanding of original intent as "masturbation." I suspect his argument is derived more from gun magazine opinion pieces than legal scholarship.
 
I agree. In Ohio, for example:
-You dont need a license to own a car.
-You dont need to register a car to own it.
-You do not need a license to drive a car on private property
-You do not need to register a car to drive it on private property
-You do not need a license to transport a car on public property
-You do not need to register a car to trasnport it on public property
-You only need a license to drive on public property
-You only need to register a car if you will drve it on public property.

I said nothing about owning a car. I said driving. In order to drive, legally, in Ohio, what are the rules, Goobie?
 
Back
Top Bottom