• 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!

The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does[W:52]

Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

matchlight said:
Why should anyone care what some leftist professor wrote about the Second Amendment in Mother Jones? What matters in what the Supreme Court has written about it in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago--and that does not jibe with his claims.
Click to expand...

it shows how desperate leftwing criminal supporters are. They never get to the 10th amendment problem
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

TurtleDude said:
can you prove Reagan's intent was to ban guns while president? YOu have been educated why Reagan signed a bill that most people thought would have the illegal hughes amendment stripped from it

and there is NO DOUBT Reagan was going to sign the bill before the Hughes Amendment was illegally attached

so your constant and specious claims about Reagan are false

and has nothing to do with the fact you support gun banning
Click to expand...

Recorded Vote 74 was the Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[9][10] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOPA

Charlie Rangel <<<<<< whoda thunk?
 
Last edited:
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

haymarket said:
He signed the damn law. I live in the real world where people are judged by their actions. At least that is what rational people do. I try not to get fooled or seduced by the lipstick on the pig like some others do.




DEFENSIVE WEAPONRY!!!! WOW!!!! Now there is a really creative label that defies all logic and reason!!!! It sounds so innocent when you say the words/ DEFENSIVE WEAPONRY ... the same as cops. WOW - talk about snake oil salesman techniques!!!!!

First - you are NOT a cop Turtle - so stop talking about using the tools they use because you do NOT do their job.
Second - the firearms cops have have not a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment - so its not a Second Amendment issue.
Third - there is not such thing as a firearm which functions only as a pure DEFENSIVE WEAPON. So the use of that phrase is intellectually dishonest and an outright fraud.


You are the self proclaimed expert on firearms Turtle so perhaps you need to educate me on what gun is it that can only be used for defense and cannot be used for offense? Please do illuminate me and the entire board on this amazing new technological development which has been unknown before today.
Click to expand...

so now the gun banner comes out

the only reason cops can use firearms is for defensive purposes

why are you engaging in another diversion and evasion?

I asked you if you favor civilians being able to own the same defensive weaponry as cops

I didn't ask about cop jobs etc


its a YES OR NO ANSWER

police are restricted from shooting people unless they have a reasonable belief that the target constitutes a reasonable threat of severe harm to others or the cops
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

TurtleDude said:
that is disingenuous and not responsive. Do you support the Hughes Amendment or not

you are on record supporting the clinton AWB
Click to expand...

He won't even list for me the specific firearms he thinks should be banned.
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

American said:
He won't even list for me the specific firearms he thinks should be banned.
Click to expand...

the evasion is patent
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

TurtleDude said:
so now the gun banner comes out

the only reason cops can use firearms is for defensive purposes

why are you engaging in another diversion and evasion?

I asked you if you favor civilians being able to own the same defensive weaponry as cops

I didn't ask about cop jobs etc


its a YES OR NO ANSWER

police are restricted from shooting people unless they have a reasonable belief that the target constitutes a reasonable threat of severe harm to others or the cops
Click to expand...

How on now, let's not let him derail the conversation. It's about the Hughes Amend and banning of guns.
 
stonewall50 said:
Too which the logical counter argument is:

Rights are granted to individuals. Powers are given to states. Why is the 2nd amongst individual liberties in the laws? That is illogical.
Click to expand...


there are several arguments that doom Waldam's tripe and why he is not seen as a serious 2A scholar (he isn't, he has no background in this area)

one: there is no grant of power to the federal government in the main body of the Constitution to regulate privately owned firearms.

two: numerous courts who ruled long before the Democrats pretended the commerce clause was such a grant, held that federal powers were not concurrent with state powers. states had some police powers to regulate firearms

three: the founders writings, the 9th and tenth amendments and numerous still valid 19th century USSC decisions all noted and proved that the 2A merely recognized a right the FOUNDERS saw as PRE EXISTING government. a federal militia DID NOT exist prior to the formation of a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and thus the 2A could not recognize a right that attaches to something that did not EXIST prior to the federal government
 
stonewall50 said:
Too which the logical counter argument is:

Rights are granted to individuals. Powers are given to states. Why is the 2nd amongst individual liberties in the laws? That is illogical.
Click to expand...


the founders saw rights as being naturally held by individuals. the Bill of Rights merely recognized them but did not GRANT them such rights
 
stonewall50 said:
Too which the logical counter argument is:

Rights are granted to individuals. Powers are given to states. Why is the 2nd amongst individual liberties in the laws? That is illogical.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. Whether anyone who hasn't examined the issue in detail thinks the Second Amendment guarantees an individual liberty doesn't make much difference. Justice Scalia's decision for the majority in D.C. v. Heller does examine it, in great detail, citing all sorts of evidence, and concludes that the right to keep and bear arms was already well established as an individual right by 1791.
 
TurtleDude said:
the founders saw rights as being naturally held by individuals. the Bill of Rights merely recognized them but did not GRANT them such rights
Click to expand...


Exactly--and from the start, self-defense was at the heart of the individual right. This is what Justice Scalia concluded in Heller at Part IIA.1.c.:

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .'
 
matchlight said:
Exactly--and from the start, self-defense was at the heart of the individual right. This is what Justice Scalia concluded in Heller at Part IIA.1.c.:

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .'
Click to expand...

some of our more vociferous gun banners claim that the supreme court's holding means nothing

of course these same gun banners ignore the founders and praise and worship the FDR Court pretending that the commerce clause was a legitimate source of federal gun control power
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

American said:
Says the guy who listed reading or carrying a Bible is extremist.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...d-agreeable-gun-control-4.html#post1064153756
Click to expand...

You outright LYING about what I said after I directly got in your face and informed you that you were LYING the first time is so beyond the pale for a person in your position that it is outright baiting.

So tell me why you persist in this crusade against me?
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

TurtleDude said:
you claimed a mini gun was "obscene" when owned by a member of the supreme sovereign

so you are on record not supporting a ban on civilians owning a mini-gun?
Click to expand...

It was my understanding that the 6000 RPM gun was NOT now availalbe for civilian use. Is it or not?
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

TurtleDude said:
that is disingenuous and not responsive.
Click to expand...

Actually if it were any more direct there would be roadkill.
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

the only reason cops can use firearms is for defensive purposes

why are you engaging in another diversion and evasion?

I asked you if you favor civilians being able to own the same defensive weaponry as cops

I didn't ask about cop jobs etc


its a YES OR NO ANSWER

police are restricted from shooting people unless they have a reasonable belief that the target constitutes a reasonable threat of severe harm to others or the cops
Click to expand...

And you are not a cop so its irrelevant.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DEFENSIVE FIREARM.


Its a lie.

Its a sham.

Its a phony use of words.

Its a ruse.

Its nonsense.

Its garbage of the worst sort.

All firearms can be used both offensively and defensively. There is no such thing as a defensive firearm.

now what about that do you not understand?
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

haymarket said:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DEFENSIVE FIREARM.

Its a lie.

Its a sham.

Its a phony use of words.

Its a ruse.

Its nonsense.

Its garbage of the worst sort.

All firearms can be used both offensively and defensively. There is no such thing as a defensive firearm.

now what about that do you not understand?
Click to expand...

what? couldn't hear you.
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

American said:
He won't even list for me the specific firearms he thinks should be banned.
Click to expand...

Provide me with a list of all the weapons available with a detailed description of their various qualities and features and I will be happy to examine it and tell you which ones merit a banning.

If you cannot do that - go fishing somewhere else where you will get a bite from the unsuspecting.
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

CRUE CAB said:
what? couldn't hear you.
Click to expand...

sorry but that was the largest type I could find using the sites tools. If I could have made it ten times larger - I certainly would have.
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

TurtleDude said:
claiming some firearms are "obscene" when owned by members of the supreme sovereign is pretty much extremist gun banning hysterics

you are on record for

machine gun bans despite no evidence-in SEVENTY YEARS-of not one crime being committed by a private citizen with a legally owned machine gun

magazine limits-you won't tell us what number because if say a 20 round ban doesn't work, you want to be able to then support a 15 round limit than ten than 7 than 3 etc

you are on record supporting bans on private citizens having the same defensive weaponry as the civilian police agencies

you don't have to hate ever race to be a racist

you don't have to hate every faith to be a religious bigot

you don't have to kill every person to be a murderer

and you don't have to publicly support banning every possible firearm to be a gun banner
Click to expand...

Not one instance?

That's spectacular effectiveness!

Wow. Maybe we should put the same regulations in place for handguns.
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

matchlight said:
Why should anyone care what some leftist professor wrote about the Second Amendment in Mother Jones? What matters in what the Supreme Court has written about it in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago--and that does not jibe with his claims.
Click to expand...

No, what really matters is what is actually written into the Constitution itself.
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

Threegoofs said:
Not one instance?

That's spectacular effectiveness!

Wow. Maybe we should put the same regulations in place for handguns.
Click to expand...

HA HA, you gun bans you so love have already been goin on for years in Chicago and NYC.

In Chicago there have been 100's of murders each year---vastly higher than most US cities. And not a single murder done one with a legal, registered handgun. Epic fail.

In NYC, the Islamic lunatic from Baltimore got so worked-up over Obama and De blasio's anti-cop hate speeches, that he used his illegal, unregistered handgun to kill two NYC cops.

Your gun control registration ideas are never going to be obeyed by gangstas and thugs here--- any more than they are in South Africa, Brazil, Colombia, or Mexico.
 
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

Flamethrower said:
HA HA, you gun bans you so love have already been goin on for years in Chicago and NYC.

In Chicago there have been 100's of murders each year---vastly higher than most US cities. And not a single murder done one with a legal, registered handgun. Epic fail.

In NYC, the Islamic lunatic from Baltimore got so worked-up over Obama and De blasio's anti-cop hate speeches, that he used his illegal, unregistered handgun to kill two NYC cops.

Your gun control registration ideas are never going to be obeyed by gangstas and thugs here--- any more than they are in South Africa, Brazil, Colombia, or Mexico.
Click to expand...

HA HA - guns are readily available just steps away from the Chicago border in Indiana.

So explain how the auto weapons restrictions are working so well everywhere. Not many crimes committed with automatic weapons in Chicago... you cant walk across the street and buy them.

Also note that Chicago actually rescinded its ban on handguns in 2010. Look what happened to murders after that... they went up. Doesnt that suggest lax laws actually lead to more crime? At the very least, it certainly doesnt suggest that loosening restrictions lowers crime, does it?

Chicago-gun-violence-e1360940308696.jpg


But this is based upon data and logic, something that seems very, very scarce in this forum section.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Second Amendment Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

haymarket said:
Provide me with a list of all the weapons available with a detailed description of their various qualities and features and I will be happy to examine it and tell you which ones merit a banning.

If you cannot do that - go fishing somewhere else where you will get a bite from the unsuspecting.
Click to expand...

You're the one that thinks some weapons should be ban aren't you? Isn't that what you are here for? Why else do "debate" us, because we wouldn't ban any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom