• 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

Chuz Life said:
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"
Click to expand...

Whatever pre-dates the Constitution is irrelevant to what is IN the Constitution. Any laws that predate the document are overruled BY the document.
 
Guy Incognito said:
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."
Click to expand...

The problem is that EVERYONE interprets the Constitution. It varies in degree and varies in what side of an issue one is on. Some are just more honest about this fact than others.
 
Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is not a fact, Ikari. There has been a study done on the phrase, "the right to bear arms" and it's usage in the 17th and 18th Centuries. There were found to be over 300 different usages of the term, ranging across the spectrum from carrying, owning, performing military service, and many others. The most commonly accepted usage during the time was as a synomym for carrying arms. Regardless, the term, even THEN is ambiguous at best. So, no, your definition is by no means definitive, and mine is and was more widely accepted.

I am still going through the study on this concept, a completely fascinating paper. I will try to give an overview of the results in the next day or so, along with the link, but what I am reading supports the definition that I have put forth as the most common usage.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Haha, I hear ya, j-mac, it's easy enough to get stuff like that mixed up under normal conditions:)

I'd say that Brown is a good example of what's wrong with originalism, though. If the Court had always to embraced originalism, Plessy wouldn't have been overturned by Brown. There's nothing in the Constitution that says what philosophy the Court has employ to determine its meaning. Indeed, the Court isn't even granted its power as the final word on Constitutional issues by the Constitution, this power comes from the interpretivist philosophy employed by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. If you really wanted to have law in this country that reflected the "original" meaning of the Constitution, it would mean radically changing the law in almost every aspect, and in a way that stare decisis would not permit.
Click to expand...


And that is my point exactly. I believe that liberals through the courts and a twisting of stare decisis has bastardized the system intentionally.


j-mac
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Whatever pre-dates the Constitution is irrelevant to what is IN the Constitution. Any laws that predate the document are overruled BY the document.
Click to expand...

Who's talking about laws?

I am talking about RIGHTS which predate the Constitution,.... not laws.

And the Constitution did not, can not, was not intended to invalidate the rights of the people which predated the Constitution.

In fact, (sans the Bill of Rights) is specifically established and put in place a system to defend those rights which predate the constitution itself.
 
j-mac said:
And that is my point exactly. I believe that liberals through the courts and a twisting of stare decisis has bastardized the system intentionally.


j-mac
Click to expand...

What is your proof of this? Your opinion?
 
Chuz Life said:
Who's talking about laws?

I am talking about RIGHTS which predate the Constitution,.... not laws.

And the Constitution did not, can not, was not intended to invalidate the rights of the people which predated the Constitution.

In fact, (sans the Bill of Rights) is specifically established and put in place a system to defend those rights which predate the constitution itself.
Click to expand...

Have you not heard about the rule of law which kept popping up during the Clinton impeachment proceedings? The rule of law trumps any tradition. If not we would still have slavery.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Have you not heard about the rule of law which kept popping up during the Clinton impeachment proceedings? The rule of law trumps any tradition. If not we would still have slavery.
Click to expand...

The right to keep and bear arms is not a tradition.

It's a right that (according to the Constitution which you are trying to revere) "shall not be infringed".
 
Chuz Life said:
The right to keep and bear arms is not a tradition.

It's a right that (according to the Constitution which you are trying to revere) "shall not be infringed".
Click to expand...

I was not talking about that. I am talking about how you said that the constitution could not overturn a right that predated the constitution. Try again.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is not a fact, Ikari. There has been a study done on the phrase, "the right to bear arms" and it's usage in the 17th and 18th Centuries. There were found to be over 300 different usages of the term, ranging across the spectrum from carrying, owning, performing military service, and many others. The most commonly accepted usage during the time was as a synomym for carrying arms. Regardless, the term, even THEN is ambiguous at best. So, no, your definition is by no means definitive, and mine is and was more widely accepted.

I am still going through the study on this concept, a completely fascinating paper. I will try to give an overview of the results in the next day or so, along with the link, but what I am reading supports the definition that I have put forth as the most common usage.
Click to expand...

It is not ambiguous at best, only so if you're trying to construct a silly reach around argument. The fact of the matter is that the purpose to keep and bear arms is to fight, there's little purpose in making it legal to "hold" a gun if the necessity is to fight foreign or domestic threats to our liberty. To continually say "well I looked into it, but it doesn't say you can use the gun" is abject stupidity and nothing more. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation. We had not long ago (in terms of the construction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) beaten the English and tried a form of government which had failed, so the founders needed a government with a slightly stronger central government, but that was also a danger. The 2nd is there to ensure the People have the proper tools to defend themselves should their lives and liberty be threatened by another source. They're not going to sit there and say "Oh...well you can hold a gun, but not fire it".

No, as the purpose was duty to the militia, the People had need to operate their guns as well. As such, the definition of "to bear" includes the functional use of the tool in question. As the dictionary meaning of the word includes.

Oxford English Dictionary Sign In
4. In many phrases. a. to arms! (formerly [OFr.] as armes! at arms!): take to your arms, be ready for fight! b. in arms: armed, furnished with weapons, sword in hand, prepared to fight; as to rise in arms (of a number); up in arms, in active readiness to fight, actively engaged in struggle or rebellion; also fig. c. to take up arms: to arm oneself, rise in hostility defensive or offensive, to draw the sword; also fig. to bear arms: to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. to turn one's arms against: to make war upon, attack. to lay down arms: to surrender, cease hostilities, give up the struggle.
a. 1330 R. BRUNNE Chron. 162 Richard, ‘has armes!’ did crie. c1380 Sir Ferumb. 2933 ‘Asarmes!’ {th}anne cride Rolond, ‘asarmes, euerechon!’ c1450 Merlin xxii. 406 And ronne to armes moo than xxvii squyers. c1450 LONELICH Grail xiii. 231 Anon, ‘As Armez,’ they gonnen to crie. 1470-85 MALORY Arthur I. xi. (1634) 22 ‘Lords, at arms! for here be your enemies at your hand.’ 1711 POPE Rape Lock v. 37 To arms! to arms! the fierce Virago cries. 1842 MACAULAY Horatius xx, To arms! To arms! Sir Consul.
b. 1503 HAWES Examp. Virtue vii. 97 Whan in armes..He all his ennemyes dyd abiecte. 1588 SHAKES. L.L.L. V. ii. 636 Heere comes Hector in Armes. 1593 {emem} 2 Hen. VI, IV. i. 93 Hating thee, and rising vp in armes. 1611 BIBLE 1 Macc. xii. 27 Ionathan commaunded his men..to be in armes. 1704 SWIFT T. Tub Apol., All the men of wit..were immediately up in Arms. 1810 SCOTT Lady of L. III. xiv, In arms the huts and hamlets rise. 1868 Digby's Voy. Medit. Pref. 32 As soon as the facts came to the knowledge of the Admiralty..Buckingham's Secretary was up in arms.
c. 1297 R. GLOUC. 63 Alle {th}at armes bere A{ygh}en {th}e king. c1590 MARLOWE Massac. Paris III. i, The Guise hath taken arms against the King. 1602 SHAKES. Ham. III. i. 59 To take Armes against a Sea of troubles. 1769 ROBERTSON Charles V, V. III. 329 Obliged to take arms in self-defence. Ibid. V. IV. 410 He turned his arms against Naples. 1795 SEWELL Hist. Quakers I. Pref. 7 For bearing arms and resisting the wicked by fighting. 1831 BREWSTER Newton (1855) II. xiv. 2 Newton took up arms in his own cause. 1848 ST. JOHN Fr. Rev. 245 Lay down your arms. 1872 YEATS Growth Comm. 180


This is consistent with every use of the word "arms", be it to lay down arms, take up arms, etc. that was used at the time. So you can stop with the little side show because it's so nonsensical it causes brain cells to commit suicide. Leave the little buggers alone, they're just trying to think.
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
What is your proof of this? Your opinion?
Click to expand...


My proof is simple really, look at where we started, and where we are today. If you can honestly say that liberal influence on the court, and an interpretation of the constitution as it applied to laws in this country hasn't been twisted to suit a "living, breathing" bent toward making law, then I think you are just not addressing this in any honest fashion.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
My proof is simple really, look at where we started, and where we are today. If you can honestly say that liberal influence on the court, and an interpretation of the constitution as it applied to laws in this country hasn't been twisted to suit a "living, breathing" bent toward making law, then I think you are just not addressing this in any honest fashion.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I need not look any further than Bush v Gore to prove who is making law. BTW, it is really strange that even the ones who made the call for Bush said that it should not set a precedent. So much for conservatives being for states' rights.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I need not look any further than Bush v Gore to prove who is making law. BTW, it is really strange that even the ones who made the call for Bush said that it should not set a precedent. So much for conservatives being for states' rights.
Click to expand...


Oh Please, spare us....The Fl SC was botching that up and everyone knows it. Wouldn't have been a question in the first place had Gore not tried to steal Fl.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Oh Please, spare us....The Fl SC was botching that up and everyone knows it. Wouldn't have been a question in the first place had Gore not tried to steal Fl.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Yeah, tell me about the ninth and tenth amendments that conservatives are so fond of except when it goes against your wishes. Bush is the one who stole the election.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Yeah, tell me about the ninth and tenth amendments that conservatives are so fond of except when it goes against your wishes. Bush is the one who stole the election.
Click to expand...


Ok, explain to me then why Gore wouldn't concede to recounting ALL the votes? eh? Why only select districts that he was actively trying to either suppress the vote count, or those which he could gerrymander?

j-mac
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Yeah, tell me about the ninth and tenth amendments that conservatives are so fond of except when it goes against your wishes. Bush is the one who stole the election.
Click to expand...

j-mac said:
Ok, explain to me then why Gore wouldn't concede to recounting ALL the votes? eh? Why only select districts that he was actively trying to either suppress the vote count, or those which he could gerrymander?
Click to expand...

Actually, I've gotta disagree with both of you. I'd say that the SCOTUS stole the election and handed it to Bush.

LiberalAvenger said:
I need not look any further than Bush v Gore to prove who is making law. BTW, it is really strange that even the ones who made the call for Bush said that it should not set a precedent. So much for conservatives being for states' rights.
Click to expand...

QFT. The Court split directly down the partisan fault line in that election, 5 right wingers for Bush four left wingers for Gore. It was scandalous from a rule of law standpoint. And the right-wing activist justices who stole the election even tacitly acknowledge what they were doing, and declared in dicta that the Bush v. Gore decision is not to be used as precedent in any future decision. There's a lot of dispute over whether or not they can even do that, and this dicta is itself a minor scandal, as a decision is necessarily precedent, and the Bush v. Gore decision has important ramifications in election law if it is considered to be precedent.

Bush and Gore both had a right to argue their case, and the Court should have been a neutral arbiter of the law. It's a tragedy that the court is now more of a superlegislature that can't be counted on to serve its function without any degree of impartiality.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Actually, I've gotta disagree with both of you. I'd say that the SCOTUS stole the election and handed it to Bush.



QFT. The Court split directly down the partisan fault line in that election, 5 right wingers for Bush four left wingers for Gore. It was scandalous from a rule of law standpoint. And the right-wing activist justices who stole the election even tacitly acknowledge what they were doing, and declared in dicta that the Bush v. Gore decision is not to be used as precedent in any future decision. There's a lot of dispute over whether or not they can even do that, and this dicta is itself a minor scandal, as a decision is necessarily precedent, and the Bush v. Gore decision has important ramifications in election law if it is considered to be precedent.

Bush and Gore both had a right to argue their case, and the Court should have been a neutral arbiter of the law. It's a tragedy that the court is now more of a superlegislature that can't be counted on to serve its function without any degree of impartiality.
Click to expand...


One can only wonder Guy, if your feeling on the court would have been the same had Gore prevailed. :roll:

Look, Gore v. Bush had to come to resolution, the Florida SC had screwed it up voting just as partisan as you say the SCOTUS did, only in Fl. the court's leaning is decidedly demo in make up.

The fact that Gore lost was unacceptable to him so he tried what I suspect most demo's do today in the face of loss in close elections, and that is to contest strategically, and tamper with the vote to show them winning.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
One can only wonder Guy, if your feeling on the court would have been the same had Gore prevailed. :roll:
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to wonder, I'll tell one. If Gore had won I wouldn't feel this way because, the make up of the court being what it was, the evidence of partisanship wouldn't have been there. Likewise if even a single liberal justice had sided for Bush, then I wouldn't feel this way. Frankly, I haven't got a dog in that fight, it didn't matter to me one bit if Bush or Gore won (People forget back in those days the big criticism was that the two candidates were hardly any distinguishable). The scandal of Bush v. Gore has nothing to do with the parties and everything to do with the miscarriage of justice.

j-mac said:
Look, Gore v. Bush had to come to resolution, the Florida SC had screwed it up voting just as partisan as you say the SCOTUS did, only in Fl. the court's leaning is decidedly demo in make up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we all know how liberal people are down in Florida...:roll:
 
Guy Incognito said:
One doesn't have to wonder, I'll tell one. If Gore had won I wouldn't feel this way because, the make up of the court being what it was, the evidence of partisanship wouldn't have been there. Likewise if even a single liberal justice had sided for Bush, then I wouldn't feel this way. Frankly, I haven't got a dog in that fight, it didn't matter to me one bit if Bush or Gore won (People forget back in those days the big criticism was that the two candidates were hardly any distinguishable). The scandal of Bush v. Gore has nothing to do with the parties and everything to do with the miscarriage of justice.



Yeah, because we all know how liberal people are down in Florida...:roll:
Click to expand...


Really? so Mockery is all you have? "no dog in the fight" indeed....pshaw!


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Really? so Mockery is all you have? "no dog in the fight" indeed....pshaw!
Click to expand...

So, what you're just ignoring my whole post? Remember when I said: "If Gore had won I wouldn't feel this way because, the make up of the court being what it was, the evidence of partisanship wouldn't have been there. Likewise if even a single liberal justice had sided for Bush, then I wouldn't feel this way."

You can think what you like, but I don't like Bush and I don't like Gore and I wasn't rooting for either of them.

And, if you think Florida's Supreme Court has some sort of "liberal bias" then you deserve all the eye-rolling you get! :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
Guy Incognito said:
Actually, I've gotta disagree with both of you. I'd say that the SCOTUS stole the election and handed it to Bush.
Click to expand...
Explain this. You may start by describing exactly how the 7-2 equal protection clause ruling was unsound.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, explain to me then why Gore wouldn't concede to recounting ALL the votes? eh? Why only select districts that he was actively trying to either suppress the vote count, or those which he could gerrymander?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Why would Gore not concede? Why should he concede. Do you know the definition of "concede"? That should answer your question.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, explain to me then why Gore wouldn't concede to recounting ALL the votes? eh? Why only select districts that he was actively trying to either suppress the vote count, or those which he could gerrymander?

j-mac
Click to expand...

Why would Gore not concede? Why should he concede? Do you know the definition of "concede"? That should answer your question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom