• 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!

Perry introduces Second Amendment Defense Act

Dittohead not! said:
So, then, your interpretation of "arms" means weapons small enough to be carried around. Therefore, if you're correct, any citizen can have any weapon small enough to be carried.

I'm not so sure your interpretation is correct, as the colonials had private warships, which are somewhat difficult to put into ones' pocket, but nevertheless, your interpretation is at odds with that of the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

If the founders meant guns to be heavily regulated, why did they include the language ...."shall not be infringed"?
 
Its absolutely crazy that there are people that are feeling a need to introduce legislation to defend the Constitution. His better solution would be to file court proceedings. In the meantime...simply unfund the executive branch of government.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Any arms small enough to be carried around, then?
Click to expand...
Small arms that you, a citizen soldier, can be expected to grab at a moments notice and augment the organized state militias.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Any arms small enough to be carried around, then?
Click to expand...

If you want to debate the topic, I am fine with that. But I will not suffer silly games of twenty questions. Capiche?
 
countryboy said:
If the founders meant guns to be heavily regulated, why did they include the language ...."shall not be infringed"?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Is that your position now, that the founders meant guns to be heavily regulated? I certainly haven't said that.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I don't know. Is that your position now, that the founders meant guns to be heavily regulated? I certainly haven't said that.
Click to expand...

Seriously dude, enough with the silly BS. Have a great day, I've got more important things to do. :)
 
countryboy said:
If you want to debate the topic, I am fine with that. But I will not suffer silly games of twenty questions. Capiche?
Click to expand...

Ah, so now you're a capo.

It's not a game of twenty questions. My argument is what it has been all along: The Second Amendment is not so clear as to not need the SCOTUS to define what it means in the 21st. century. It doesn't say "guns", but "arms". Even if you define "arms" as weapons small and light enough to be carried around, it's not practical, in the 21st. century, to have any citizen carrying around any weapons that they want. Words written back in the 18th. century aren't clear to everyone living in the 21st.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The SCOTUS is the one of the three branches of government that should have no more or less power than the other two. It is charged with interpreting the Constitution, a document written in the 18th. century, in light of 21st. century reality. It's no simple task.
Click to expand...

It's beyond question that the judiciary has far LESS power than the other two branches, for reasons Hamilton made clear in Federalist No. 78.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, then, your interpretation of "arms" means weapons small enough to be carried around. Therefore, if you're correct, any citizen can have any weapon small enough to be carried.
Click to expand...

Did you READ what I wrote? Not any weapon small enough to be carried around. Your attempt to obfuscate is noted.

I clearly excluded area effect weapons, which includes grenades, bombs, etc. I would add this includes biologics, chemical, and nuclear weapons which have an area effect.

When called up, active service militia and military forces can be issued such weapons, and in a revolt the revolutionaries would not be inhibited by such rules. However, in times of peace and normal congress with one's fellow citizens, ordnance can be limited.

Dittohead not! said:
I'm not so sure your interpretation is correct, as the colonials had private warships, which are somewhat difficult to put into ones' pocket, but nevertheless, your interpretation is at odds with that of the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Actually, what they had was private shipping, which was converted to warship classification during the war. I don't believe anyone had a private frigate-of-war or man-of-war (cruisers and battleships of the day). The did have frigate class merchant ships which could be converted into warships.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
Ah, so now you're a capo.

It's not a game of twenty questions. My argument is what it has been all along: The Second Amendment is not so clear as to not need the SCOTUS to define what it means in the 21st. century. It doesn't say "guns", but "arms". Even if you define "arms" as weapons small and light enough to be carried around, it's not practical, in the 21st. century, to have any citizen carrying around any weapons that they want. Words written back in the 18th. century aren't clear to everyone living in the 21st.
Click to expand...

The Court answered the points you raise very clearly in D.C. v. Heller in 2008. It doesn't matter whether that decision is clear to everyone today. Most of the collectivists who hate the Second Amendment have not even read Heller, and most of them who tried could not understand much of what Justice Scalia wrote anyway.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Did you READ what I wrote? Not any weapon small enough to be carried around. Your attempt to obfuscate is noted.

I clearly excluded area effect weapons, which includes grenades, bombs, etc. I would add this includes biologics, chemical, and nuclear weapons which have an area effect.

When called up, active service militia and military forces can be issued such weapons, and in a revolt the revolutionaries would not be inhibited by such rules. However, in times of peace and normal congress with one's fellow citizens, ordnance can be limited.
Click to expand...

What gives you the right to personally interpret what is meant by "arms"?

You see, my argument is not that guns should be more heavily regulated. My point is what it has been all along, that the Second Amendment can't be taken at face value.

And, the continued interpretation of what the term "arms" means and what it means to "infringe" the right to bear them just supports what I've said all along.

My original statement was that, if the Second Amendment is so clear, we shouldn't have been arguing over their meaning. Now, we're supporting what I said by arguing over their meaning.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
The Court answered the points you raise very clearly in D.C. v. Heller in 2008. It doesn't matter whether that decision is clear to everyone today. Most of the collectivists who hate the Second Amendment have not even read Heller, and most of them who tried could not understand much of what Justice Scalia wrote anyway.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Th SCOTUS did the job it has been charged with doing: It interpreted the Second Amendment in light of 21st. century reality.

Now, if the words of the Second Amendment are so clear, why does it need interpreting? Just look back at the responses to my posts and see. The words are not clear when taken literally.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Exactly. Th SCOTUS did the job it has been charged with doing: It interpreted the Second Amendment in light of 21st. century reality.

Now, if the words of the Second Amendment are so clear, why does it need interpreting? Just look back at the responses to my posts and see. The words are not clear when taken literally.
Click to expand...

I don't know what that means. The words of the Second Amendment are as clear as the words in other parts of the Bill of Rights.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Small arms that you, a citizen soldier, can be expected to grab at a moments notice and augment the organized state militias.
Click to expand...

Like much of the Constitution, the 2nd amendment addresses concerns that States had about Federal power and in this case their ability to disarm State Militia's. I really don't see how that has been extrapolated to private ownership of guns. I don;t think it has anything to do with private gun control as that was not an issue considering most citizens helped feed their families by hunting at that time.
 
matchlight said:
I don't know what that means. The words of the Second Amendment are as clear as the words in other parts of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Then why is it we've been arguing about the meaning of those words for the past several decades? That was my original question, before all of the statements about the meaning of "arms" and what constitutes "infringement". The words may be clear to you and to me and to the rest of the 300 million or so citizens of this great nation, but everyone still has their own opinion of what those clear words mean.

In other words, they're not so clear after all.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The Second Amendment is not so clear as to not need the SCOTUS to define what it means in the 21st. century. It doesn't say "guns", but "arms". Even if you define "arms" as weapons small and light enough to be carried around, it's not practical, in the 21st. century, to have any citizen carrying around any weapons that they want. Words written back in the 18th. century aren't clear to everyone living in the 21st.
Click to expand...
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ""dangerous and unusual weapons"."
Click to expand...

So, let's go down the list:
  • Non-lethal weapons (ie; paint-ball guns, tazers): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Ranged weapons (ie; bow, crossbow, sling-shot): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Melee weapons (knives, axes, saps, baton): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle/shotgun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Assault-rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Machine-gun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear/radiological weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Lethal Biological/Chemical weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes
  • Non-Lethal Chemical weapons (ie; tear-gas, pepper-spray): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
 
Dittohead not! said:
What gives you the right to personally interpret what is meant by "arms"?

You see, my argument is not that guns should be more heavily regulated. My point is what it has been all along, that the Second Amendment can't be taken at face value.
Click to expand...

Your mistake is in believing that I am personally interpreting this right.

As a student of this subject I could quote chapter and verse about what the advocates considered "bearing arms" to mean during the pre- and post revolutionary period when the ratification of the Second Amendment designed to limit Federal power to infringe was being debated. However, this would take a classroom level of education over a period of time to enlarge your personal understanding.

However, in all frankness, you have already been shown the points in numerous posts throughout various thread by many members of this Forum and I believe you already have a firm grasp of the facts. I do not consider you an unintelligent person, so all I can think of is that you are either intentionally ignoring the information, or you simply refuse to grasp it due to assumption bias. :confused:
 
iguanaman said:
Like much of the Constitution, the 2nd amendment addresses concerns that States had about Federal power and in this case their ability to disarm State Militia's. I really don't see how that has been extrapolated to private ownership of guns. I don;t think it has anything to do with private gun control as that was not an issue considering most citizens helped feed their families by hunting at that time.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights addresses concerns the CITIZENS had. Its ludicrous that you believe that it was designed for the states. But I dont think you actually believe that. Its just an argument you want to twist to support your argument against private ownership of firearms
1- "the right of the people"
2- "the right of the people"
3- "the consent of the Owner"
4- "The right of the people"
5- "No person"
6- "the accused shall enjoy"
7- "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved"
8- "bail not denied and no cruel and unusual punishment" again...the people.
9- "retained by the people.
10- most telling..."to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
Jerry said:
So, let's go down the list:
  • Non-lethal weapons (ie; paint-ball guns, tazers): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Ranged weapons (ie; bow, crossbow, sling-shot): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Melee weapons (knives, axes, saps, baton): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle/shotgun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Assault-rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Machine-gun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear/radiological weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Lethal Biological/Chemical weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes
  • Non-Lethal Chemical weapons (ie; tear-gas, pepper-spray): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point: The words of the Second Amendment are not so clear in light of 21st. century reality, and so had to be interpreted by the SCOTUS. Now we have at least some idea what weapons are and are not allowed. We know that handguns may not be prohibited by Washington DC, but that they may be regulated by local entities.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Your mistake is in believing that I am personally interpreting this right.

As a student of this subject I could quote chapter and verse about what the advocates considered "bearing arms" to mean during the pre- and post revolutionary period when the ratification of the Second Amendment designed to limit Federal power to infringe was being debated. However, this would take a classroom level of education over a period of time to enlarge your personal understanding.

However, in all frankness, you have already been shown the points in numerous posts throughout various thread by many members of this Forum and I believe you already have a firm grasp of the facts. I do not consider you an unintelligent person, so all I can think of is that you are either intentionally ignoring the information, or you simply refuse to grasp it due to assumption bias. :confused:
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps the point I'm arguing is not what you think my position is.

The words of the Second Amendment are not clear to everyone. They are subject to interpretation.

There. That's as clear and concise as I can make my position. I think those are words that are clear to everyone.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Exactly my point: The words of the Second Amendment are not so clear in light of 21st. century reality, and so had to be interpreted by the SCOTUS. Now we have at least some idea what weapons are and are not allowed. We know that handguns may not be prohibited by Washington DC, but that they may be regulated by local entities.
Click to expand...
Maybe you just now learned this, but it's old news to the rest of us.
 
Jerry said:
Maybe you just now learned this, but it's old news to the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Then why is it that you have been maintaining that the words of the Second Amendment are clear? Seems we've been on the same page all along, yet your posts have led me to believe that you want to interpret the words of that amendment literally.
 
iguanaman said:
Like much of the Constitution, the 2nd amendment addresses concerns that States had about Federal power and in this case their ability to disarm State Militia's. I really don't see how that has been extrapolated to private ownership of guns. I don;t think it has anything to do with private gun control as that was not an issue considering most citizens helped feed their families by hunting at that time.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have not read D.C. v. Heller. The majority did not agree with the views you are expressing. Justice Scalia's opinion makes very clear that the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is an individual]/I] right, and whether you see what the right has to do with government control of a private individual's firearms is not relevant. What you are asserting about state militias sounds like the arguments the Court rejected in Heller.
 
Jerry said:
Perry introduces Second Amendment Defense Act
POSTED 12:27 PM, JANUARY 6, 2016, BY TANIEL ORR, UPDATED AT 12:33PM, JANUARY 6, 2016

"Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Scott Perry (PA-4) introduced a bill this week that would prohibit the President from enacting his proposed executive action as it relates to gun control. Specifically, the Second Amendment Defense Act disallows the Executive branch from unilaterally taking action to create more restrictive regulations on law-abiding gun owners.

“President Obama blames Congress’ “inaction” on gun legislation as his reason for once again using Executive fiat to achieve his goals. The U.S. Government already has 240 pages of gun regulations passed by Congress. President Obama’s failure to enforce existing law should be the focus of attention here.

The latest data from the Justice Department shows that during FY 2015 the government reported 6,002 new weapons convictions – down 5.8 percent from the previous FY when the number of convictions totaled 6,373. There’s no “loophole” that prevents federal law enforcement officials from prosecuting illegal gun trafficking. President Obama should be focusing his efforts on pushing the Department of Justice to aggressively investigate and prosecute gun trafficking crimes involving real criminals.

As a proud and responsible gun owner, I’ll continue to be a resolute supporter of every law-abiding American’s Second Amendment rights.”"

H. R. 4319 text:
Click to expand...

Perry is an extremist loon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom