• 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

TurtleDude said:
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
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."

necessary is stated right in the 2nd amendment.

since you are an expert, what does a civilian use a light machine gun for other than maybe extremely expensive target practice? I have no idea why supresive fire would be needed in a self-defense or hunting situtation.
 
drz-400 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."

necessary is stated right in the 2nd amendment.

since you are an expert, what does a civilian use a light machine gun for other than maybe extremely expensive target practice? I have no idea why supresive fire would be needed in a self-defense or hunting situtation.
Click to expand...

The "security of a free state" is a cause which is exponentially greater than the mere right of one person to defend him or herself.

If the right to keep and bear arms was solely for an individual's right to defend themself,.... there would have been no need to specifically mention the "militia."
 
Chuz Life said:
The "security of a free state" is a cause which is exponentially greater than the mere right of one person to defend him or herself.

If the right to keep and bear arms was solely for an individual's right to defend themself,.... there would have been no need to specifically mention the "militia."
Click to expand...

Ok, well we have a malitia, and its known as the state patrol and national gaurd. They all require training, aka they are well regulated. Why should we not require the same of every citizen if they want to use the same guns as the military.
 
drz-400 said:
Ok, well we have a malitia, and its known as the state patrol and national gaurd. They all require training, aka they are well regulated. Why should we not require the same of every citizen if they want to use the same guns as the military.
Click to expand...

It seems you have a problem appreciating the composition of a Militia and what their purpose is.

Indiana State Constitution; Article 12, section 1;

"Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law."

Emphasis mine.

Other States and codes have similar definitions.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
It seems you have a problem appreciating the composition of a Militia and what their purpose is.

Indiana State Constitution; Article 12, section 1;

"Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law."

Emphasis mine.

Other States and codes have similar definitions.
Click to expand...

So what does that prove? Everyone over 17 can be part of a state malitia.
 
drz-400 said:
So what does that prove? Everyone over 17 can be part of a state malitia.
Click to expand...

It proves that everyone above the age of 17 is in the militia. A citizen is automatically enrolled upon reaching the age of 17.
 
Goshin said:
Oh, Captain, my Captain... why must you do this, when you have to know it is neither a sensible nor logical nor supportable position?
Click to expand...

Two reasons. Firstly, it is completely logical in keeping with a strictly literalist position of the Constitution. Secondly, it is completely logical in keeping with a strictly literalist position of the Constitution.

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...

I can show you quotes from Hamilton that oppose Jefferson's perception. He believed that the Constitution needed to evolve.
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
Click to expand...

Yet the fact that this is NOT written in the 2nd Amendment either indicates that the 2nd is more narrow than what Jefferson says, or can be more loosely construed. If we look at this from an originist standpoint, I think the first possibility is more likely.


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)
Click to expand...

Very true. But still not in the 2nd Amendment.


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)
Click to expand...

Adams along with Hamilton is probably my favorite founding father. Similar to what I said about Jefferson, though, either this was not included in the 2nd to narrowly construe it and accentuate the importance of the possessing of arms to prevent government tyranny, or to leave it open to interpretation for future generations. Remember, the Federalists did not want the Bill of Rights included, as they felt this could be too narrow and lead to government tyranny. Since many of them worked on the Constitution, it is conceivable that their wording was left vague to prevent these kinds of abuses and to allow for future issues to be included.


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)
Click to expand...

Look at what I placed in bold. Washington gets it. It is not use that causes the restriction of government tyranny. It is their PRECENCE. Action is irrelevant, since by the time action is taken, tryanny has already occurred. The founders wanted the 2nd Amendment to PREVENT tyranny, not to stop it. That is why carry and possess is there, and use is not.


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.
Click to expand...

Actually, my position is quite literally what the Constitution says, and since the original intent of the 2nd was to prevent government tyranny... and as I am often told by those who are pro-2nd Amendment... without the 2nd, the 1st cannot be defended, the 2nd is a preventative measure. My assessment is not only on target via originalist interpretation (which isn't actually interpretation at all), but it is also on target for the basic tenet of the Amendment itself. Anything veerring from this is interpretation and implication and does not adhere to a constructionist position.
 
drz-400 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."

necessary is stated right in the 2nd amendment.

since you are an expert, what does a civilian use a light machine gun for other than maybe extremely expensive target practice? I have no idea why supresive fire would be needed in a self-defense or hunting situtation.
Click to expand...
False premise, that the only valid purpose to have a gun is hunting or personal self-defense.
The purpose for the amdnemnt is to to make sure the militia will always have the proper weapons. LMGs fall into that caategory.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is an example of the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy Goobie
Click to expand...
\
The fact that you cannot cite a single restriction on the right to arms based on your silly argument is proof of the silliness of that argument.
 
drz-400 said:
So what does that prove? Everyone over 17 can be part of a state malitia.
Click to expand...

Militia.

M-I-litia.

And what it proves is the fact that the right to keep and bear arms "for the security of a free State" is greater than the mere right for each and every citizen to defend themself individually.
 
Goobieman said:
\
The fact that you cannot cite a single restriction on the right to arms based on your silly argument is proof of the silliness of that argument.
Click to expand...

The fact that this request results in nothing but the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy, demonstrates that you position has no merit.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The fact that this request results in nothing but the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy, demonstrates that you position has no merit.
Click to expand...

Captain if your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would not be (in your view) a clear violation of the 9th Amendment. (i.e. reading the "right to keep and bear arms" as a right for the government to regulate usage,....) Could you please provide an example of what you WOULD accept as a clear violation of the 9th Amendment?

Reminder; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." -- 9th Amendment
 
Chuz Life said:
Captain if your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would not be (in your view) a clear violation of the 9th Amendment. (i.e. reading the "right to keep and bear arms" as a right for the government to regulate usage,....) Could you please provide an example of what you WOULD accept as a clear violation of the 9th Amendment?

Reminder; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." -- 9th Amendment
Click to expand...

I don't see anything as a CLEAR violation of the 9th Amendment, as the 9th Amendment is completely arbitrary. I like what Robert Bork said about it, indicating that it's meaning is indeterminate. It's more of a truism or a way to understand the Constitution, than a right or law.
 
Chuz Life said:
Captain if your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would not be (in your view) a clear violation of the 9th Amendment. (i.e. reading the "right to keep and bear arms" as a right for the government to regulate usage,....) Could you please provide an example of what you WOULD accept as a clear violation of the 9th Amendment?

Reminder; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.." -- 9th Amendment
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
I don't see anything as a CLEAR violation of the 9th Amendment, as the 9th Amendment is completely arbitrary. I like what Robert Bork said about it, indicating that it's meaning is indeterminate. It's more of a truism or a way to understand the Constitution, than a right or law.
Click to expand...

Riiiight.

So, do you find it acceptable to use the enumeration of certain rights stated in the Constitution,.... to deny and or disparage other rights retained by the people?

Note also the 10th Amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Translation; "If it hasn't been specifically stated in the Constitutions,.... if it's ambiguous,.... you are to err in favor of "the people."
 
Chuz Life said:
Riiiight.

So, do you find it acceptable to use the enumeration of certain rights stated in the Constitution,.... to deny and or disparage other rights retained by the people?

Note also the 10th Amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Translation; "If it hasn't been specifically stated in the Constitutions,.... if it's ambiguous,.... you are to err in favor of "the people."
Click to expand...

And Bork,... is not the last word on any of it.

Is he.
 
Chuz Life said:
Riiiight.

So, do you find it acceptable to use the enumeration of certain rights stated in the Constitution,.... to deny and or disparage other rights retained by the people?
Click to expand...

The rights identifed in the Constitution take precidence, of course. This is clearly stated in the 10th Amendment. Since the 9th is completely unclear in what those other rights are, I err on the side of clarity.

Note also the 10th Amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Translation; "If it hasn't been specifically stated in the Constitutions,.... if it's ambiguous,.... you are to err in favor of "the people."
Click to expand...

Very rarely has any law been declared unconstitutional based on 10th Amendment grounds. In general, from historical context, the 10th Amendment has been seen as nothing more than a statement indicating the relationship between the federal government and the states. United States v. Darby affirmed this. In the unanimous decision, Justice Stone stated:
Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which provides: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'. The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. See e.g., II Elliot's Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IV id. 140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, secs. 1907, 1908.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Click to expand...

So, no, the 10th.. nor the 9th Amendment have an impact on my position.
 
Chuz Life said:
And Bork,... is not the last word on any of it.

Is he.
Click to expand...

Didn't say he was. There were plenty who agreed with my position on this. Bork's comments were the most concise.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The rights identifed in the Constitution take precidence, of course. This is clearly stated in the 10th Amendment. Since the 9th is completely unclear in what those other rights are, I err on the side of clarity.



Very rarely has any law been declared unconstitutional based on 10th Amendment grounds. In general, from historical context, the 10th Amendment has been seen as nothing more than a statement indicating the relationship between the federal government and the states. United States v. Darby affirmed this. In the unanimous decision, Justice Stone stated:


So, no, the 10th.. nor the 9th Amendment have an impact on my position.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Nothing further your honor,....

I rest my case.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Two reasons. Firstly, it is completely logical in keeping with a strictly literalist position of the Constitution. Secondly, it is completely logical in keeping with a strictly literalist position of the Constitution.



I can show you quotes from Hamilton that oppose Jefferson's perception. He believed that the Constitution needed to evolve.


Yet the fact that this is NOT written in the 2nd Amendment either indicates that the 2nd is more narrow than what Jefferson says, or can be more loosely construed. If we look at this from an originist standpoint, I think the first possibility is more likely.




Very true. But still not in the 2nd Amendment.




Adams along with Hamilton is probably my favorite founding father. Similar to what I said about Jefferson, though, either this was not included in the 2nd to narrowly construe it and accentuate the importance of the possessing of arms to prevent government tyranny, or to leave it open to interpretation for future generations. Remember, the Federalists did not want the Bill of Rights included, as they felt this could be too narrow and lead to government tyranny. Since many of them worked on the Constitution, it is conceivable that their wording was left vague to prevent these kinds of abuses and to allow for future issues to be included.




Look at what I placed in bold. Washington gets it. It is not use that causes the restriction of government tyranny. It is their PRECENCE. Action is irrelevant, since by the time action is taken, tryanny has already occurred. The founders wanted the 2nd Amendment to PREVENT tyranny, not to stop it. That is why carry and possess is there, and use is not.




Actually, my position is quite literally what the Constitution says, and since the original intent of the 2nd was to prevent government tyranny... and as I am often told by those who are pro-2nd Amendment... without the 2nd, the 1st cannot be defended, the 2nd is a preventative measure. My assessment is not only on target via originalist interpretation (which isn't actually interpretation at all), but it is also on target for the basic tenet of the Amendment itself. Anything veerring from this is interpretation and implication and does not adhere to a constructionist position.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Your position is not in accord with many Framer's statements regarding their view of the right to bear arms, semantics and willful stubborness aside.
 
Goshin said:
Sigh. Your position is not in accord with many Framer's statements regarding their view of the right to bear arms, semantics and willful stubborness aside.
Click to expand...

You can keep insisting on this all day, but without any facts to back you up it means precisely zilch, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that CC has presented to the contrary. If you think that the Framers' original intent for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the right to shoot beer cans off a fence from federal encroachment, please provide some evidence for this position. I'd love to see it.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Sigh. Your position is not in accord with many Framer's statements regarding their view of the right to bear arms, semantics and willful stubborness aside.
Click to expand...

There were plenty of things that the framers said that didn't make it into the Constitution, many of them opinions that were somewhat contradictory. That's why, from an originist position, one must take what is said at face value. That is what I am illustrating, here.
 
Chuz Life said:
You proved my position for me when you (in an act of hari cari?) dismissed the relevance of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No. I dismissed the relevance of both Amendments to my argument using citations, information, and logic. You offered zilch. That would be a win for me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No. I dismissed the relevance of both Amendments to my argument using citations, information, and logic. You offered zilch. That would be a win for me.
Click to expand...

I offerered the amendments from you know,.... ummmm that Constitution thingy.

And you dismissed them without any consideration for what they say or the spirit in which they were framed.

I have (nor feel the need for) anything further, your honor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom