• 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: .
Jerry said:
To keep context, you had said:

The 2A being a restriction on the Federal government, a State infringement of that restriction would be a State creating a law that allowed the Federal government to infringe on the right to keep and bear.

States can't make such laws as States would need to be superior to the Federal government, and they aren't because of the Supremacy Clause. As clarified in United States v. Cruikshank, unless a State has a version of the 2A in it's State constitution States remain free to infringe on the right to keep and bear, but no State can infringe on the Federal restriction, the 2A.

Would you now like to amend or retract your statement?
Click to expand...

From your own link:

"The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

So no, I would not like to retract my statement, seeing that it was completely correct.

jamesrage said:
What a load of BS.Why have the bill of rights if states can nullify them?
Click to expand...

Ask the founding fathers.
 
Paleocon said:
From your own link:

"The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
Click to expand...
Right, the second amendment is a restriction on the federal government. When you say states can infringe on the second amendment you're saying states can infringe on the restriction placed on the federal government.

Keep in mind that the 2A and the right to keep and bear arms are two different things. Saying the second amendment is infringed is not saying the right to keep and bear arms is infringed.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
The 2nd Amendment is an unalienable right. You can't equivocate on it in this way. Either all States have the right or none do.

Think about your proposal in terms of the First Amendment. Should States decide what free speech is?

I'd rather deal with the occasional Federal regulation than mish mates our rights along State values. If the 2nd Amendment is to change then it has to be nationwide and because the change makes total sense. Letting different states have different understandings represents a watering down of the "unalienable" concept.
Click to expand...
There are no unalienables right. Not of any kind.
 
Jerry said:
Right, the second amendment is a restriction on the federal government. When you say states can infringe on the second amendment you're saying states can infringe on the restriction placed on the federal government.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying they can infringe on it. Until 2010, it was impossible for them to infringe on it.
 
Paleocon said:
No, I'm not saying they can infringe on it. Until 2010, it was impossible for them to infringe on it.
Click to expand...
And it's still impossible for states to infringe upon the restriction because of the Supremacy Clasuse.
 
Paleocon said:
Ask the founding fathers.
Click to expand...

Obviously your interpretation of is wrong.Because it is pointless to list something the people have as rights if a lower government can remove those rights
 
jamesrage said:
Obviously your interpretation of is wrong.Because it is pointless to list something the people have as rights if a lower government can remove those rights
Click to expand...

As I said, take up your argument with them.
 
Paleocon said:
As I said, take up your argument with them.
Click to expand...
Are you ready to recant you're inaccurate statement or would you like more punishment for you failings first?
 
Jerry said:
Are you ready to recant you're inaccurate statement or would you like more punishment for you failings first?
Click to expand...

Palecon is not completely wrong. The founders saw the second amendment as an absolute blanket prohibition on the federal government. They obviously were aware that state governments had the power to engage in regulation that would run afoul of a blanket prohibition. There is no conflict though because the federal government never had any power in this area to start with. when it comes to the state governments there are two explanations as to the founders

1) they never could have conceived that states would try to significantly interfere with an obvious right

2) state constitutions were supposed to prevent that

but until the 14th amendment was created, the bill of rights didn't restrain state action
 
TurtleDude said:
Palecon is not completely wrong. The founders saw the second amendment as an absolute blanket prohibition on the federal government. They obviously were aware that state governments had the power to engage in regulation that would run afoul of a blanket prohibition. There is no conflict though because the federal government never had any power in this area to start with. when it comes to the state governments there are two explanations as to the founders

1) they never could have conceived that states would try to significantly interfere with an obvious right

2) state constitutions were supposed to prevent that

but until the 14th amendment was created, the bill of rights didn't restrain state action
Click to expand...
I contest his assertion that states infringed on the federal ban, at all, let allone on 2010.

He seems to be confusing the amendment with the right, as though the amendment conferrs the right.
 
Jerry said:
I contest his assertion that states infringed on the federal ban, at all, let allone on 2010.

He seems to be confusing the amendment with the right, as though the amendment conferrs the right.
Click to expand...

agreed. that is an important distinction
 
Jerry said:
Are you ready to recant you're inaccurate statement or would you like more punishment for you failings first?
Click to expand...

My current way of responding, that is by helping you make a fool of yourself, is satisfactory.
 
Paleocon said:
My current way of responding, that is by helping you make a fool of yourself, is satisfactory.
Click to expand...
While Googling 'lame insult generator' you may also want to read Presser v. Illinois so as to educate yourself on the thread topic. The 2A is a federal restriction, not a right. States cannot infringe on any federal amendment. No state has infringed on the second-amendment, ever, let alone in 2010.
 
The constitution was written in plain language and in such a way that anyone could understand it. Any claim that requires another clause to justify is wrong. Any claim that requires case law is wrong. Any claim that requires a convoluted meaning not in evidence is wrong.

All claims should stand side by side with a copy of the bill of rights or section and an explanation of the meaning of any word that is claimed different to justify this claimed meaning. ie Claimed "shall not be infringed" means it may be limited in some cases must be evidenced by a meaning of "infringed" that allows this. "Shall" being a command not an invitation or at discretion.

The bill of rights is an affirmation of existing rights.

Why are 27 words so difficult to understand?
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
While Googling 'lame insult generator' you may also want to read Presser v. Illinois so as to educate yourself on the thread topic. The 2A is a federal restriction, not a right. States cannot infringe on any federal amendment. No state has infringed on the second-amendment, ever, let alone in 2010.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you've finally figured it out.

Crimefree said:
The constitution was written in plain language and in such a way that anyone could understand it. Any claim that requires another clause to justify is wrong. Any claim that requires case law is wrong. Any claim that requires a convoluted meaning not in evidence is wrong.
Click to expand...

Ironically, this statement itself is not clearly stated in the constitution, and is thus self-refuting.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm glad you've finally figured it out.



Ironically, this statement itself is not clearly stated in the constitution, and is thus self-refuting.
Click to expand...

There you go exactly as I said. Do not make wild claims without proving it. So quote the words and show how this self refuting takes place within the meaning of the words.

I'd be interested to see how you got that using my rules of proof of claim. If you cannot show that it is horse pucky.
 
Crimefree said:
There you go exactly as I said. Do not make wild claims without proving it. So quote the words and show how this self refuting takes place within the meaning of the words.

I'd be interested to see how you got that using my rules of proof of claim. If you cannot show that it is horse pucky.
Click to expand...

You wrote:

"The constitution was written in plain language and in such a way that anyone could understand it"

This statement about the constitution does not* come from the plain text of the constitution, and is thus self-refuting.

*if it does, then please quote where in the constitution it comes from.
 
Paleocon, I'm not letting this go....
Paleocon said:
Before 2010, state infringement of the 2nd was not a concept in American law. ...
Click to expand...
You are claiming States can trump Federal law. This has never been true. Not today, not in 2010, not ever. Please recant your erroneous statement.
 
Paleocon said:
As I said, take up your argument with them.
Click to expand...

1. Do you have a quote by Jame Madison that says the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and not the states?

2.How can you say the bill of rights does not apply to the states when the 10th amendment clearly states that when what ever is not in the constitution is for the states? So this clearly reaffirms that states have no business infringing on the bill of rights.

3.Why would people who have a problem with a draconian government want the states to be able to be draconian?So it makes no sense for a bill of rights only to apply to the federal government.

4.The first part of the 2nd amendment a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State relies on people being able to get firearms.How can that happen if states can deny people their rights to have firearms?

5.The constitution is the most supreme law of the land, no laws state or federal can undermine it.So the idea that states can undermine it is absurd.
 
Voted no. This doesn't deal with capping and reigning in the arms manufacturers.
 
Jerry said:
Paleocon, I'm not letting this go....

You are claiming States can trump Federal law. This has never been true. Not today, not in 2010, not ever. Please recant your erroneous statement.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't care about your inability to read my posts.

jamesrage said:
1. Do you have a quote by Jame Madison that says the bill of rights only applied to the federal government and not the states?

2.How can you say the bill of rights does not apply to the states when the 10th amendment clearly states that when what ever is not in the constitution is for the states? So this clearly reaffirms that states have no business infringing on the bill of rights.

3.Why would people who have a problem with a draconian government want the states to be able to be draconian?So it makes no sense for a bill of rights only to apply to the federal government.

4.The first part of the 2nd amendment a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State relies on people being able to get firearms.How can that happen if states can deny people their rights to have firearms?

5.The constitution is the most supreme law of the land, no laws state or federal can undermine it.So the idea that states can undermine it is absurd.
Click to expand...

As I said, the Bill of Rights originally didn't apply to the states. That's simply a fact, and one that you should learn about before pontificating on the matter.
 
Paleocon said:
As I said, the Bill of Rights originally didn't apply to the states. That's simply a fact, and one that you should learn about before pontificating on the matter.
Click to expand...
Do you have a quote from James Madison the author of the bill of rights to reaffirm your absurd notion? The idea that the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states is absurd.


Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters


James Madison, Constitution’s architect, makes it clear

The man most involved in writing the Constitution, James Madison, had this to say when presenting points for and against amending the Constitution by adding a Bill of Rights:
"It may be said, because it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions: that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of the people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.
“I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Beside some states have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty." (My italics.)
Here, Madison is arguing for adding a national bill of rights by pointing out that some states have insufficient bills of rights. The logical implication is that this national bill of rights will correct the problem of states that have insufficient bills of rights. Therefore, he is acknowledging that the national bill of rights will apply to the states.
A final point: yes, most of the contemporary discussion on the Constitution concerned restraining the new federal government. But that does not mean that the Framers were not cognizant of the fact that the Constitution, by its supremacy, could and would restrain state governments, too.
Madison, presenting Congress with points for and against a Bill of Rights:
"It may be said, because it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions: that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of the people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.
“I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Beside some states have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty."
It is perfectly clear that he believes a national bill of rights will correct the fact of non-existent or defective state BOR's. Therefore he is clearly implying that a federal BOR will apply to the states.
 
jamesrage said:
Do you have a quote from James Madison the author of the bill of rights to reaffirm your absurd notion? The idea that the bill of rights doesn't apply to the states is absurd.
Click to expand...

As I said, the Bill of Rights originally didn't apply to the states. That's simply a fact, and one that you should learn about before pontificating on the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom