• 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

CaptainCourtesy said:
Post the links to the definitions. Everyting that I have seen says quite the opposite, that "to bear" means only "to possess and carry". It is irrelevant as to whether or not use is "implied". I am talking about what is actually said, not what one can interpret. From what I see, the actual definition is "to possess and carry"... and this is also why Goobieman's counter argument is absurd. The actual definition of speech is the one I posted, therefore it applies.
Click to expand...



Oh, Captain, my Captain... why must you do this, when you have to know it is neither a sensible nor logical nor supportable position?

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)




Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)


Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)


John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)


George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)


Your position is one where you are straining and stretching a point in an attempt to adopt a position contrary to the Founders' intent.... re-read the first Jefferson quote, this is not a valid position.
 
LaMidRighter said:
No no no. A million times no, there is no public interest served in limiting what people can own in the terms of firearms, only in what they do with them such as indiscriminate fire in public, attempted murder, actual murder, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it is called "prior restraint" and American jurisprudence despises it. "We're going to prevent you from owning a car, because you might run over someone with it, even though we have no reason to think you in particular would do so." This is prior restraint, and it sucks in all cases.
 
The_Patriot said:
The fallacy is the one you're proposing on using the current definitions for a law written 220+ years ago. You have to use the definition from the time of when the law was written to ascertain what the authors of the law meant.
Click to expand...

Etymological fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Etymology is sometimes thought of as the study of the "true meaning" of a word, but this is not what it is. It is the concern of etymology to study the history of a word. Thus it examines when and how a word entered the language, how its original form changed over the years and how its meaning evolved. Etymology, then, studies the true provenance of words, while in the etymological fallacy it is mistakenly thought to be the study of their true meaning."
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Etymological fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Etymology is sometimes thought of as the study of the "true meaning" of a word, but this is not what it is. It is the concern of etymology to study the history of a word. Thus it examines when and how a word entered the language, how its original form changed over the years and how its meaning evolved. Etymology, then, studies the true provenance of words, while in the etymological fallacy it is mistakenly thought to be the study of their true meaning."
Click to expand...

Did James Madison and the other founding fathers use the current modern definitions of the words found in the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights? It's a simple enough question for you to answer.
 
Goshin said:
Exactly, it is called "prior restraint" and American jurisprudence despises it. "We're going to prevent you from owning a car, because you might run over someone with it, even though we have no reason to think you in particular would do so." This is prior restraint, and it sucks in all cases.
Click to expand...
Exactly, I cringe at times when I hear a small portion of people talk about their firearms and "wishing" something would happen because they are always held up as an example by those looking to preemptively ban certain weapons classes. I like the car example as well, certain cars are banned in the U.S. because a few powerful police lobby groups argued they cannot be overtaken by traditional police interceptors, well........nothing outruns radio.

Same thing with pretty much any class of automatic rifle, I'm not looking to outrun or outgun the police and would argue that most americans wouldn't either by a decidedly high population percentage, I simply want those things for a couple of reasons, I marvel at the way they were built, love the challenges they present, and just plain think they are cool as hell.
 
The_Patriot said:
Did James Madison and the other founding fathers use the current modern definitions of the

Yes they did but they did not have atomic bombs, machine guns, flame throwers, tanks, and other weapons of mass destruction at the time.
Click to expand...
 
LiberalAvenger said:
It gets the power from the phrase "public interest". For example in Walz v NY Tax Commission the supreme court ruled that even though it is probably against the 2d amendment to give churches tax free status that it was in the public interest to do so.

In a case where the dangers to society outweigh the benefits of a right the public interest could trump certain enumerations. No right is completely absolute. Each one carries a certain responsibility to the common weal.
Click to expand...

That is beyond lame. even the dems under FDR used the commerce clause which is a joke

try again, that doesn't even merit an F if I was still grading Con Law exams for One Ls
 
LiberalAvenger said:
The_Patriot said:
Did James Madison and the other founding fathers use the current modern definitions of the

Yes they did but they did not have atomic bombs, machine guns, flame throwers, tanks, and other weapons of mass destruction at the time.
Click to expand...

small arms used today were far more predictable 240 years ago then the internet, satellite communications etc

so does that mean the first amendment does not apply to this board?
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
That is beyond lame. even the dems under FDR used the commerce clause which is a joke

try again, that doesn't even merit an F if I was still grading Con Law exams for One Ls
Click to expand...

Most geniuses like me are misunderstood by the ivory tower intellectuals. People also ridiculed people like Louis Pasteur and the people who claimed that the world was flat.

It's no wonder we have idiots like Roberts on the bench.
 
TurtleDude said:
LiberalAvenger said:
small arms used today were far more predictable 240 years ago then the internet, satellite communications etc

so does that mean the first amendment does not apply to this board?
Click to expand...

Small arms were not safer. In fact, they blew up in your face a lot.

Throw out some more red herrings.
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
so does that mean the first amendment does not apply to this board?
Click to expand...

I notice that you use analogy to the first amendment only when it helps your case, but somehow you dismiss analogy to the first amendment when it blows your case out of the water. The first amendment wasn't originally intended to protect anything but political speech, nothing more. Likewise, the second amendment, which is explicitly tied to the militia, prima facie limits the use of arms to martial use only, a fact which history clearly bears out by the fact that "keep and bear" is a legal term of art refering to military and not personal use, and when views of the early commentators are considered. It's fine if you want to cherry-pick your facts and reinterpret Constitutional rights in light of modern sensibilities (after all, based on the way you are arguing you clearly believe that the Constitution is a Living Document that changes with the times) but this is utterly disingenuous to the original intent of the Framers.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since the 9th indenfies rights that are not mentioned and are only implied to exist, there is no wonder that it is the most confusing of all of the first 10 Amendments. Unless one can identify what rights it actually discusses, it is all surface and little substance.
Click to expand...

The Framers wrote the 9th Amendment to guard against the very thing that you are trying to do with the 2nd.

You are trying to use the fact that the 2nd Amendment lists only the right to "keep and bear" to mean that since they didn't specifically mention the "use" of arms,... the door must be wide open for the government to regulate it.

And doing that; "using the enumeration of certain rights to deny others not listed" is a clear violation of the 9th.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I notice that you use analogy to the first amendment only when it helps your case, but somehow you dismiss analogy to the first amendment when it blows your case out of the water. The first amendment wasn't originally intended to protect anything but political speech, nothing more. Likewise, the second amendment, which is explicitly tied to the militia, prima facie limits the use of arms to martial use only, a fact which history clearly bears out by the fact that "keep and bear" is a legal term of art refering to military and not personal use, and when views of the early commentators are considered. It's fine if you want to cherry-pick your facts and reinterpret Constitutional rights in light of modern sensibilities (after all, based on the way you are arguing you clearly believe that the Constitution is a Living Document that changes with the times) but this is utterly disingenuous to the original intent of the Framers.
Click to expand...


Utter nonsense. I've posted innumerable quotes by the Framers that made it quite clear that they intended the 2A to safeguard the individual right to possess and carry weapons, and to use them for all lawful purposes including self-defense. I've supported my argument with sourceable facts as to their original intent, and you continue to ignore those facts in favor of pushing your opinion that they had no such intent... and you have posted nothing to support that opinion.

I begin to believe that you have no intention of debating honestly.

Since you have a remarkable ability to ignore what you don't want to hear, let's have it again:

What the Founders of the US said about guns:
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
Click to expand...

On what is the militia:

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment.

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
Click to expand...


FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth
of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the
Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages
who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean
to be masters." (Source still being sought)

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)
Click to expand...
 
Captain - to avert debate but answer the question : you said you rejected natural rights.... among them self-defense, self-determination, self-control, to speak your mind, etc... I just picked one aspect, and finished the question with 'unless you were meaning something else'.

That's where I got that idea.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You can keep trying, Goobie, but you keep failing
Click to expand...
No, the only failed argument here is yours.
But, as I cannot keep you from being wrong, please continue at your leisure.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I defy you to prove that my position is not logical and fits in the literal definition of the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
What's that? you cannot definitively ciite -any- restiction n the right to arms that is based on your silliness?
I thought not. But then as you argument is silly, that's the natural conclusion.
 
TurtleDude said:
civilian police officers are lousy shots for the most part. I would bet my house that the average class III machine gun owner is far more skilled in shooting than the average cop. Tell me-where does the federal government get the proper power to regulate machine guns

quick question to see if you are able to play in this game. What is the intended purpose of a full auto selector switch on an M4 rifle versus the semi auto switch?
Click to expand...

I have already told you why I think the feds have the power. A machine gun is not necessary for self-defense, hunting, or really anything I can think of outside the military and law enforcement arena. Law enforcement and military get trained to use these weapons, so a license does not seem to make it any harder for the civilian to get them than a military man.

I have no idea why the selector switch is on the M4, other than I want to shoot a lot of rounds by pulling the trigger once rather than multiple times. Of course M16's and the like are not as much what I am concerned about. It's more like the belt fed automatics since you can put hundreds of rounds downrange without reloading. I am sorry but I have nightmares about what could happen if those were plentiful on the streets. Sure a criminal can get them now, but its a hell of a lot harder if we make them illegal for those without a license.
 
TurtleDude said:
thus you reject the underlying premise upon which the founders were operating and therefore your interpretation of the bill of rights is going to be very different from those who accept that premise.
Click to expand...

Yup. That is completely true.

Ultimately the question comes down to--did the founders delegate to the federal government the power to regulate small arms? If the answer is no then all the sematincs about what the second amendment guarantees really is not all that interesting because the federal government has to have that delegated power to do anything and I note it properly does not.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that the federal government has the right to regulate the possession or ownership of small arms. I believe that the 2nd Amendment is quite clear on this.
 
drz-400 said:
I have already told you why I think the feds have the power. A machine gun is not necessary for self-defense, hunting, or really anything I can think of outside the military and law enforcement arena. Law enforcement and military get trained to use these weapons, so a license does not seem to make it any harder for the civilian to get them than a military man.

I have no idea why the selector switch is on the M4, other than I want to shoot a lot of rounds by pulling the trigger once rather than multiple times. Of course M16's and the like are not as much what I am concerned about. It's more like the belt fed automatics since you can put hundreds of rounds downrange without reloading. I am sorry but I have nightmares about what could happen if those were plentiful on the streets. Sure a criminal can get them now, but its a hell of a lot harder if we make them illegal for those without a license.
Click to expand...

I look at it like this : if someone were to rob a bank and half the hostages have the capacity to shoot back, it would make all but the most desperate of criminals think twice. Whereas, if they know that only 1-3 security guards need to be disabled / overwhelmed, it's just a matter of getting the jump on them and so the crime is much easier.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
It is a fallacy to use the oldest definition of a word to define it. Words often change meanings over time.
Click to expand...

The_Patriot said:
The fallacy is the one you're proposing on using the current definitions for a law written 220+ years ago. You have to use the definition from the time of when the law was written to ascertain what the authors of the law meant.
Click to expand...

Actually, The_Patriot is correct on this one. The founders wrote the document, therefore it is their definition that counts, not what we have now. Of course, I still see no difference in the two, unless one uses supposition and interpretation, which I am not. Therefore, though The_Patriot is correct, this does not affect my argument in any way.
 
Goobieman said:
No, the only failed argument here is yours.
But, as I cannot keep you from being wrong, please continue at your leisure.
Click to expand...

Since you have no defense, I understand why you must state, blindly, that I am wrong. Of course, that incorrect declaration doesn't change the fact that you have offered no defense.
 
Goobieman said:
What's that? you cannot definitively ciite -any- restiction n the right to arms that is based on your silliness?
I thought not. But then as you argument is silly, that's the natural conclusion.
Click to expand...

This is an example of the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy Goobie, so your point is negated, again. Come on Goobie... show the lack of logic of my position... if you can.
 
BmanMcfly said:
I look at it like this : if someone were to rob a bank and half the hostages have the capacity to shoot back, it would make all but the most desperate of criminals think twice. Whereas, if they know that only 1-3 security guards need to be disabled / overwhelmed, it's just a matter of getting the jump on them and so the crime is much easier.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but no one is going to carry a huge automatic weapon around (nor should they) to protect themselves. They will most likely have a pistol of some sort, which I have no problem with.
 
drz-400 said:
I agree with that, but no one is going to carry a huge automatic weapon around (nor should they) to protect themselves. They will most likely have a pistol of some sort, which I have no problem with.
Click to expand...

Agreed... like those light machine guns... friggin things look like they are around 4-5 feet long.

I don't know why anyone, unless you're holding a fort under heavy assault, it seems that you're better off with the 1 bullet per pull of the trigger so that you'll at least be hitting your targets. That's probably why you seen in the movies the guy running uphill being chased by like 50 guys and a tank with automatic weapons hitting everything BUT the target.
 
drz-400 said:
I have already told you why I think the feds have the power. A machine gun is not necessary for self-defense, hunting, or really anything I can think of outside the military and law enforcement arena. Law enforcement and military get trained to use these weapons, so a license does not seem to make it any harder for the civilian to get them than a military man.

I have no idea why the selector switch is on the M4, other than I want to shoot a lot of rounds by pulling the trigger once rather than multiple times. Of course M16's and the like are not as much what I am concerned about. It's more like the belt fed automatics since you can put hundreds of rounds downrange without reloading. I am sorry but I have nightmares about what could happen if those were plentiful on the streets. Sure a criminal can get them now, but its a hell of a lot harder if we make them illegal for those without a license.
Click to expand...

you are dismissed from the argument since you really have no clue

Need has nothing to do with rights

and when you figure out the usage of full auto weapons get back to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom