• 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!

A compromise

Would this be an acceptable compromise?

  • Total voters
    27
  • This poll will close: .
jet57 said:
Off topic pablum.

Nothing in your post refutes the 10th amendment or the Heller decision on the limitations of the 2nd.
Click to expand...

You are baiting. Either address the point/claims with logical rebuttal or concede the point

It is not off topic and you do not understand the meaning of the 2A. Nor have you offered one single shred of evidence that some government court decision in any way is superior to the constitution.

Nor have you shown by producing the words where any power to regulate arms is given to the States or courts. Do quote them so all can see.

You have no valid evidence to support your claim which is patently false. Courts many not change the constitution. They have no power to do so and the only way States can regulate arms is if the 2A read not withstanding States power to regulate arms. That would have made a mockery of everything the founding fathers stood for.

It is not possible the 10th can override the 2nd
 
Crimefree said:
Let me quote you so there is no mistake.



Do you agree a ban is simply a complete restriction? It is complete denial as as against arbitrary denial. It is the extreme form of restriction, Since you did not quantify restriction it is logical to assume your claim applies to a ban.

Your claim it is a strawman argument is patently false.

It makes no sense because the constitution amendment states may nor be infringed and any restriction or regulation is an infringement.

Any claim to have justified an infringement is false as the constitution has not changed. Nor has the meaning of infringe since the time of writing.
Click to expand...

A ban is a restriction that is covered by AAALLLL of the facts that I've presented to you all over the thread today and yesterday.

There is no straw man coming form my said. I've given the unimpeachable definition of a straw man and you have simply ignored it in favor of some other meaning that suits your inability to stay on topic. So such claims are going to be ignored.

Futher, as for the constitution, yet again, that;'s all been asked and answered so I'm not entertaining that dead horse any longer either.

Your claim of a false justified infringement has, for the last time, been utterly destroyed by reality, so your wishful thinking on the uselessness of the 10th amendment and the Supreme Court is simply your determination to dance around the fact that you can't prove otherwise. So, if you got nothing else that can qualify as competent refutation of said reality, then the diatribe is about over.
 
Paleocon said:
I get that you think you understand the constitution better than those alive when it was written.
Click to expand...

The bill of rights plain as day applies to people. If it did only apply to the federal government then it would say so.There would be a quote by it's author saying it applies only to the federal government.
 
Mr Person said:
Why do you think it is a requirement in the federal constitution, that any provision within that federal constitution applies to the states unless it specifically says otherwise?

It is the federal constitution. It spells out the powers and limits of the federal government. Such a requirement would be bizarre, especially given just how much of a miracle it was that Madison, Hamilton, Jay, et al., were able to convince enough states to sign on. There's no way it would have been ratified if all of its provisions and any future amendments thereto by definition applied to the states.

(But mainly, see the link I provided. The cases it cites should be available on the Supreme Court's website if you doubt the veracity of the claims about what those cases say).
Click to expand...

The constitution is the law of the land and the supreme law of the federal. If Madison wanted the bill of rights only to the apply to the states then it would say so in the bill of rights.It is pretty pointless to list rights the PEOPLE have if states can simply take them away. I seriously doubt Madison would be cool with his home state forcing him to house troops, imposing a state religion on him or another violation of the bill of rights.
 
Mr Person said:
I positively hate to agree with Paleocon, but he is absolutely right if he said "the Bill of Rights originally didn't apply to the states."

That is 100% true.
Click to expand...

The point to where in the bill of rights it says it only applies to the states or maybe even produce a quote by it's author stating the intent of the bill of rights.

While it's been some time since I studied the selective incorporation movement in the Supreme Court, this sounds generally consistent with my memory:

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

It wasn't until the 20th century that the Supreme Court began to hold that the bill of rights applied to the states because this was the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment (they said, dubiously sometimes). McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) was the first decision that ever held that the Second Amendment applied to the states via the Due Process clause of the 14th Amd.

In fact, some provisions still do not apply, such as the right to indictment by grand jury or the right to having a jury drawn from the state and district of the crime.
Click to expand...

The supreme court did not author the bill of rights.Supreme court appointees are political appointees.Like the supreme court judges of today the ones back made rulings based on their political biases. The fact is activists judge made up something about the bill of rights that was not back up by the bill of rights nor backed up by the intent of it's author.
 
jamesrage said:
The bill of rights plain as day applies to people. If it did only apply to the federal government then it would say so.There would be a quote by it's author saying it applies only to the federal government.
Click to expand...

As I said, I get that you think you know better than the people around then.
 
Crimefree said:
Who does "shall not be infringed" exclude?
Click to expand...

It was, like all of the BoR, originally intended only as a restriction on the federal government.
 
Paleocon said:
It was, like all of the BoR, originally intended only as a restriction on the federal government.
Click to expand...

Where is that stated in the bill of rights?You can't find it it the bill or rights nor can you find a quote by it's author supporting retarded idea because it was something that activist judges came up with.

The bill of rights clearly states theses rights are for the people.It is not called the "Bill Of Rights, But Only If Your State Allows You To Have Them".
 
Crimefree said:
Who does "shall not be infringed" exclude?
Click to expand...
One would think that since the bill of rights clearly says people have the right to this and that or some form of it in the bill of rights then it would mean no government can take away those rights.
 
jamesrage said:
Where is that stated in the bill of rights?You can't find it it the bill or rights nor can you find a quote by it's author supporting retarded idea because it was something that activist judges came up with.

The bill of rights clearly states theses rights are for the people.It is not called the "Bill Of Rights, But Only If Your State Allows You To Have Them".
Click to expand...
Why is it that you understand the constitution better than those who write it?
 
sarasmith205205 said:
Do you think there should be gun reform?
Click to expand...
Oh yes, absolutely. Delete 99% of all the gun laws. You can keep the age, legal resident and non-felon requirements. You can also keep gun-free-zones for specific locations which can demonstrate an actual material need to keep firearms off the premises AND supply armed guards.
 
Paleocon said:
Why is it that you understand the constitution better than those who write it?
Click to expand...

Do you have a quote by the guy who wrote the bill of rights supporting your retarded notion that it only applies to the federal government? Can you point to where in the bill of rights it says it only applies to the federal government? You can't do either of those things.

The bill of rights if for the people.Its why its mentioned multiple times "the right of the people".It's why the 3rd amendment says any house. Its why the 5th amendment says "No person shall be....". Its why the 6th amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall....." There is no fine print that says it only applies to the federal government. You can not honestly sit there and tell that James Madison would be alright with his state forcing him to house troops in his home, or holding him without a trial just as long it's only the state doing those things to him.
 
jamesrage said:
Do you have a quote by the guy who wrote the bill of rights supporting your retarded notion that it only applies to the federal government? Can you point to where in the bill of rights it says it only applies to the federal government? You can't do either of those things.

The bill of rights if for the people.Its why its mentioned multiple times "the right of the people".It's why the 3rd amendment says any house. Its why the 5th amendment says "No person shall be....". Its why the 6th amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall....." There is no fine print that says it only applies to the federal government. You can not honestly sit there and tell that James Madison would be alright with his state forcing him to house troops in his home, or holding him without a trial just as long it's only the state doing those things to him.
Click to expand...

This isn't an answer to the question, why do you believe that you understand the document, better than those who wrote it?

Please just answer.
 
Paleocon said:
This isn't an answer to the question, why do you believe that you understand the document, better than those who wrote it?

Please just answer.
Click to expand...

Can you show me a quote by the Bill of Right's author supporting your retarded notion that the bill of rights only applies to the federal government? Only one person wrote the bill of rights.If it is true that the bill of rights only applies to the federal government then you should able to find a quote by it's author or point to where in the bill of rights it says that it only applies to the federal government.
 
Paleocon said:
This isn't an answer to the question, why do you believe that you understand the document, better than those who wrote it?

Please just answer.
Click to expand...

what pre-existing right did the founders intend to recognize with the second amendment?
 
TurtleDude said:
what pre-existing right did the founders intend to recognize with the second amendment?
Click to expand...

They believed in a pre-existing natural right to be armed, if I recall correctly. I don't agree, but that's beside the point.

But as you know, only those portions of the Constitution expressly affecting the states were originally intended to restrict them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom