• 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

Not all episodes where people vote on something or respond to a poll is an "appeal to popularity."

But I can see how a loser would think it is or claim that it is.

In this case, it would. I can see how a loser would want to have a vote on something that he's lost on, though.

What are you, Three?

You were wrong to dismiss the relevance and the significance of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Most people would likely agree with me that you are trying to use the wording of the 2nd. Amendment to deny aspects of the right (use),... simply because those aspects were not specifically written in the amendment (keep and bear).

Show some integrity and admit someone has made a point worthy of this ****ing forum once in a while or step the **** down as a wannabe god-damned admin.
 
Last edited:
Most people would likely agree with me that you are trying to use the wording of the 2nd. Amendment to deny aspects of the right,... simply because those aspects were not specifically written in the amendment.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Hard to believe as it may be, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is how we determine what the second amendment means. When you start to read things into the Constitution that aren't actually there, it's called interpretivism. Kinda like that pesky right to privacy they established in Roe v. Wade, which based on the logic you employ above, I can only assume that you support...
 
Not all episodes where people vote on something or respond to a poll is an "appeal to popularity."

But I can see how a loser would think it is or claim that it is.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Hard to believe as it may be, the wording of the 2nd Amendment is how we determine what the second amendment means. When you start to read things into the Constitution that aren't actually there, it's called interpretivism. Kinda like that pesky right to privacy they established in Roe v. Wade, which based on the logic you employ above, I can only assume that you support...

Here is the text of the 9th and 10th Amendments,....

Do explain how you reconcile the sentiments they express with what you just said;

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
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.

We are supposed to 'interpret' the Constitution.

But after the pie is cut and powers are given the government,... EVERYTHING left over goes to "the States respectively or to the people."

Like the Amendment says.
 
Last edited:
Here is the text of the 9th and 10th Amendments,....

Do explain how you reconcile the sentiments they express with what you just said;

Gladly: The Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms, as discussed earlier this is a legal term of art that refers exclusively to military service, and furthermore this is tied explicitly to the militia use, it does not protect any other use. When it was incorporated against the States, on an originalist reading this carried over to protect only the right to keep and bear arms for militia use as against the states. There is no original intent for a second amendment right to absolute possession and use of guns, only for the militia use. Anything more expansive than this is interpretivism. The 9th and 10th amendments don't support your positions, quite the contrary. The Second Amendment doesn't deny the right to use guns for self-defense, hunting, etc, it just doesn't recognize it. On an originalist reading, the right to regulate these aspects of gun ownership is left to the states, and with the expansion of the commerce clause the federal government as well.
 
Last edited:
We are supposed to 'interpret' the Constitution.

Exactly! So I can assume you support a Constitutional right to privacy as decided in Roe v. Wade? After all, by this statement you just committed yourself to this position.
 
fortunately, CC doesn't abuse power like that

Many boards I have been on-when you crush a mod, they ban you. A board I once was a mod on was owned by a cowardly schmuck and he got cyber-castrated by a lady poster and he then banned her. I unsubscribed immediately. Fortunately, I haven't seen that sort of abuse here

Consider yourself lucky.

Gladly: The Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms, as discussed earlier this is a legal term of art that refers exclusively to military service, and furthermore this is tied explicitly to the militia use, it does not protect any other use. When it was incorporated against the States, on an originalist reading this carried over to protect only the right to keep and bear arms for militia use as against the states. There is no original intent for a second amendment right to absolute possession and use of guns, only for the militia use. Anything more expansive than this is interpretivism. The 9th and 10th amendments don't support your positions, quite the contrary. The Second Amendment doesn't deny the right to use guns for self-defense, hunting, etc, it just doesn't recognize it. On an originalist reading, the right to regulate these aspects of gun ownership is left to the states, and with the expansion of the commerce clause the federal government as well.

So by your reading, all one would do would be to join a militia and the right would be enforced.
 
Last edited:
The Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms, as discussed earlier this is a legal term of art that refers exclusively to military service, and furthermore this is tied explicitly to the militia use, it does not protect any other use.

From here on you base your argument on the false premise that the 2nd Amendment "right to keep and bear" is the ONLY right to keep and bear.

When in fact, the right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution.

Where did the founders (for example) get the right to take up arms (including CANNONS) against the King and declare our independence?

The Constitution wasn't even contemplated at that time.

The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than an expansion of, and a clarification of one aspect of a right that existed for centuries before the amendment was penned.

You also ignore things like States Constitutions which declare the "militia" as being "ALL persons over the age of 17,... etc"
 
When someone takes a position that is clearly lacking in substance, and holds to it despite plentiful evidence to the contrary, sensible people eventually get tired of beating their head against a brick wall. :mrgreen:

Doesn't make you right.

Doesn't make me wrong, either. There gas been no evidence YET presented that I have not refuted. My position is completely logical from a literal position on the Constitution. Now, if you want to go with an original intent argument, I can refute that, too, demonstrating that the founders differed in their position in the Constitution as a whole.

So, THUS FAR, I haven't seen anything that demonstrates an error in my position. The larger question, though is this. I agree fully in the right ti posses an carry weapons should no be infringed. I also state that the government has the right to regulate usage. In general, this is the position held by this who would be classified as "pro-gun". Why, then, are you all having a problem with my argument?
 
Yes, but you forget. CC is da judge here and his gavel has landed.:smash:

Only when it comes to moderation, not debate. There MIGHT be a way to pokeva hole in my argument, but if there us, no one has found it yet.
 
So, THUS FAR, I haven't seen anything that demonstrates an error in my position. The larger question, though is this. I agree fully in the right ti posses an carry weapons should no be infringed. I also state that the government has the right to regulate usage. In general, this is the position held by this who would be classified as "pro-gun". Why, then, are you all having a problem with my argument?

It's because they've pegged themselves to "originalism" or "textualism," to the point where they cannot accept that fact that those philosophies cannot honestly support the pro-gun agenda. I'm pro-gun as well, and personally I'd like to see the issue addressed honestly to provide a solid foundation for gun rights. But there is a certain element of the pro-gun side, as evinced by Goshin, tex, Turtle, goobie, etc, that has reviled interpretivism from the left-wing to the point that they are in deep denial and cannot accept their own interpretivism. Let's not kid ourselves, these are classic denial symptoms here, there isn't even an attempt at logical argument, and the responses to your point have consisted of little more than "you're wrong because I said so."
 
Dueling was a tradition in this country even before the constitution was written. This sort of leads me to believe that the framers believed in the right to bear arms. How could anyone duel without arms (no pun intended)?

Duel! | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine

We no longer have the right to duel. Should we have had a constitutional amendment to prevent dueling?
 
So, THUS FAR, I haven't seen anything that demonstrates an error in my position.

How about the fact that the original definition of "to bear" as a verb includes the fundamental usuage of whatever is being borne? It doesn't mean just "to hold", otherwise it would be "To keep and hold...". To bear as the verb it is being used as includes the functional use of whatever tool, in this case arms, is being borne.
 
Dueling was a tradition in this country even before the constitution was written. This sort of leads me to believe that the framers believed in the right to bear arms.
[...]
We no longer have the right to duel. Should we have had a constitutional amendment to prevent dueling?

Actually, dueling was never considered a right and has been a crime at common law since long before the American Revolution. It was certainly popular around the revolutionary era, of course, but there were numerous legal attempts to suppress it, and as far as I can tell it was never authorized under the law. Check out this article for a really fascinating history of dueling: SSRN-The End of the Affair? Anti-Dueling Laws and Social Norms in Antebellum America by Harwell Wells
 
Turtle, the Black Knight in this situation is you. Despite never advancing a single argument based on fact, nor being able to defeat a single fact-based argument of CC's, you continue to claim victory. It amazes me how intelligent people can be in such deep denial in the face of facts and argument that undermine their worldview, but I suppose it shouldn't. I mean, I understand where you're coming from, you can't give up absolute gun rights and you can't give up orginalism, so in the face of incontrovertible facts that the two are incompatible, I guess it's either denial or head asplode.

1) you have been called out by other posters as being a troll or someone who wants to play games

2) I know more about this topic than you will ever be able to learn-indeed I forget more about this topic than you will ever know

3) I wasn't replying to you with the Monty Python article. The person it was directed to was smart enough to figure that out
maybe that is why he is King and you are covered in poop:mrgreen:

4) you have posted absolutely no facts and others have noted that as well

5) You fail to understand that the reason I claim there is "absolute gun rights" as you call it (incorrectly-I have consistently noted that use restrictions are clearly constitutional at a state level) is not due to what the second amendment means or was intended to mean but rather because of the tenth amendment and the fact that the founders never delegated any such power to the federal government

6) you fail to set forth what you actually believe -=rather like many trolls or rope a dope contrarians you pick at what others say but refuse to take a stand that you would have to defend

7) you obviously have no academic training or credentials in this area.
 
How about the fact that the original definition of "to bear" as a verb includes the fundamental usuage of whatever is being borne? It doesn't mean just "to hold", otherwise it would be "To keep and hold...". To bear as the verb it is being used as includes the functional use of whatever tool, in this case arms, is being borne.

This has been discussed already, actually I think you're the one who quoted the article that addressed this. "Keep and bear arms" was a legal term of art, like "cease and desist," that referred only to the use of arms for military service and did not encompass the common meaning of the words "keep" or "bear" as used separately.
 
This has been discussed already, actually I think you're the one who quoted the article that addressed this. "Keep and bear arms" was a legal term of art, like "cease and desist," that referred only to the use of arms for military service and did not encompass the common meaning of the words "keep" or "bear" as used separately.

Yes, and as previously discussed it was to demonstrate the defined use of "to bear", not whether or not historically the 2nd was purely in terms of military exercise. This is because currently, the 2nd is noted as an individual right not limited to military service. As such, the only subject which had current bearing was the use of "to bear". And it doesn't matter anyway as even if it is in relation only to that of a militia, I reserve the right to join a militia and participate in its activities at my leisure. Thus you may not infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
Actually, dueling was never considered a right and has been a crime at common law since long before the American Revolution. It was certainly popular around the revolutionary era, of course, but there were numerous legal attempts to suppress it, and as far as I can tell it was never authorized under the law. Check out this article for a really fascinating history of dueling: SSRN-The End of the Affair? Anti-Dueling Laws and Social Norms in Antebellum America by Harwell Wells

That was interesting. It sort of reminds me of the illegal immigration laws that have been made by the feds that they do not enforce,

which begs the question, why make laws that are not enforced?
 
Gladly: The Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms, as discussed earlier this is a legal term of art that refers exclusively to military service and furthermore this is tied explicitly to the militia use, it does not protect any other use
You have have, thus far, shown nothing to support this claim.

There is no original intent for a second amendment right to absolute possession and use of guns, only for the militia use
.
it is impossible for you to support this claim.

The Second Amendment doesn't deny the right to use guns for self-defense, hunting, etc, it just doesn't recognize it
Again, it is impossible for you to support this claim.

Why do you keep making a claim that you know you cannot support?
 
fortunately, CC doesn't abuse power like that

Many boards I have been on-when you crush a mod, they ban you. A board I once was a mod on was owned by a cowardly schmuck and he got cyber-castrated by a lady poster and he then banned her. I unsubscribed immediately. Fortunately, I haven't seen that sort of abuse here

Thank you. Very true.
 
What are you, Three?

See, this is an excellent example of what you do. You make an obnoxious comment, and then when responded to in kind, you whine. If I acted 3, then so did you. How about NOT acting 3 and NOT whining when it gets thrown back at you. Might be a novel approach.

You were wrong to dismiss the relevance and the significance of the 9th and 10th Amendments.

No, I wasn't. They do not apply to my argument, so they are dismissed as part of it.

Most people would likely agree with me that you are trying to use the wording of the 2nd. Amendment to deny aspects of the right (use),... simply because those aspects were not specifically written in the amendment (keep and bear).

Who cares what MOST people agree to. What is written is what is written. MOST people used to think the world was flat, too.
 
Show some integrity and admit someone has made a point worthy of this ****ing forum once in a while or step the **** down as a wannabe god-damned admin.

Consider yourself lucky.

Moderator's Warning:
Here's a great idea for the two of you. Do not attack moderation or moderators publicly and you will avoid consequences... like a 6A violation if either of you do this again. I hope that is clear enough for the two of you.
 
We are supposed to 'interpret' the Constitution.

Congratulations. We now have a winner in the game, "let's see if there is a hole in CC's argument." This is the only one that is there. So, either you are an originalist, and take the 2nd as it is stated... usage can be regulated, or you interpret the Constitution and become a hypocrite if you argue against interpretation in other ways. Now, that does not mean that you must agree with how things are interpreted, but unless you want to be a losing contestant on DP's favorite game show, Hypocrisy Check!, you must remember that since you have interpreted, there is nothing wrong with interpretation. In fact, by commenting that the "Necessary and Proper Clause" is "invulnerable" in Federalist 44, Madison states that it would be impossible to list all rights that take into consideration all of the nation's present and future concerns. Hamilton, of course, also believed in the evolutionary process of the Constitution. See, Chuz, this is why your 9th and 10th Amendment arguments fail. Both Madison, the author of the Constitution, and Hamilton, the foremost defender of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers agree with me... and with YOU, in the fact that Constitutional interpretation was an edict by the founding fathers.

So, as I said, you can be a staunch originalist, and agree with my position, or agree that some degree of Constitutional interpretation is valid, and prove my position wrong... but... then you would need to be careful about integrity when arguing Constitutional issues. Oh, and just as a side note. By poking this hole in my position, you allow me to demonstrate that the government can regulate gun usage in other ways, through Constitutional interpretation.

Now, what have we learned here? We have learned that EVERYONE interprets the Constitution. EVERYONE. They do it to different degrees and to suit their own positions. NO ONE is true originalist. If you are, then you must agree with my position.
 
Back
Top Bottom