• 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!

Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516:1716:2243]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Rucker61 said:
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

Now if you're arguing that you'd like to make 115 million American adults take part in periodic militia training, subject to any and all training requirements and equipment requirements, that's a different topic and isn't really about gun control at all. I wonder in Congress in their "wisdom", when they prescribe the "wellness of regulation", will make them subject to UCMJ during the training periods, or allow the officers of the militia to enforce haircut and beard standards, or even weight standards. 10 USC 311 isn't limited to gun owners.
Click to expand...

It is a simple fallacy of composition; you would be correct if our Second Amendment were about natural rights, instead of what is necessary to the security of a free State. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

danielpalos said:
It is a simple fallacy of composition; you would be correct if our Second Amendment were about natural rights, instead of what is necessary to the security of a free State. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It's also not necessary define the individual right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS affirmed that back in 1876.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Rucker61 said:
No, it isn't. It's also not necessary define the individual right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS affirmed that back in 1876.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

danielpalos said:
Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process, not our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

You have been asked dozens of times to prove this rather specious claim. You have never done that. So we have to assume you are just making that claim up. especially in light of the fact at natural law was the basis of the constitution and the bill of rights
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

TurtleDude said:
You have been asked dozens of times to prove this rather specious claim. You have never done that. So we have to assume you are just making that claim up. especially in light of the fact at natural law was the basis of the constitution and the bill of rights
Click to expand...

I have already quoted State Constitutions. When are you going to start paying attention to the arguments.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

danielpalos said:
I have already quoted State Constitutions. When are you going to start paying attention to the arguments.
Click to expand...

You haven't come close to proving your silly claim that the Bill of rights are not based on natural rights. In fact that claim of yours runs contrary to just about all known information about constitutional theory.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

from the ACLU
https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history

The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that as human beings, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs, including:

From the [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, DejaVu Serif, serif]Fordham ( a top 20 law school-widely respected) Law review
[/FONT]
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1424&context=flr


If we were here merely to demonstrate
that the Constitution, as to its preamble and its Bill of Rights Amend-ments, is explainable and understandable only in the light of natural law,we would take little of your time, and that little would be spent inlaboring the obvious and self-evident.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

TurtleDude said:
from the ACLU
https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history

The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that as human beings, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs, including:

From the [FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, DejaVu Serif, serif]Fordham ( a top 20 law school-widely respected) Law review
[/FONT]
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1424&context=flr


If we were here merely to demonstrate
that the Constitution, as to its preamble and its Bill of Rights Amend-ments, is explainable and understandable only in the light of natural law,we would take little of your time, and that little would be spent inlaboring the obvious and self-evident.
Click to expand...

Great. :thumbs:

I'm so glad they wrote down a clear and concise version of what they believed, and allowed us to modify that through amendment to the US Constitution.

I am adamant that thinking something, and not legislating it does not necessarily make it law. Given the amount of time between now and the ratification of the Bill of Rights, what the framers thought about natural rights may not apply to the legal code today in the same way it applied to the legal code then. Still, the law in question is identical to the original law.

So, you want us to believe that there is a rational basis for the Second Amendment being a special amendment due to its framers' historical status; as they say, that is history.

Gun control is not against the laws the framers handed down from on high, and I don't believe it is now any more "Orwellian" than it would have been back then.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Celebrity said:
Great. :thumbs:

I'm so glad they wrote down a clear and concise version of what they believed, and allowed us to modify that through amendment to the US Constitution.

I am adamant that thinking something, and not legislating it does not necessarily make it law. Given the amount of time between now and the ratification of the Bill of Rights, what the framers thought about natural rights may not apply to the legal code today in the same way it applied to the legal code then. Still, the law in question is identical to the original law.

So, as much as you want us to believe that there is a rational basis for the Second Amendment being a special amendment due to its framers' historical status, that as they say, is history.

Gun control is not against the laws the framers handed down from on high, and I don't believe it is now any more "Orwellian" than it would have been back then.
Click to expand...

you apparently are ignorant of both the tenth amendment and Article One, Section 8.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

TurtleDude said:
you apparently are ignorant of both the tenth amendment and Article One, Section 8.
Click to expand...

The states have the power to implement gun control.

Not sure what the tenth amendment has to do with it.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Celebrity said:
The states have the power to implement gun control.

Not sure what the tenth amendment has to do with it.
Click to expand...

yeah they do as long as it

1) doesn't violate their own constitutions

2) doesnt violate the second amendment now that the second is applicable to states as well as at the federal government. Now that is where things get interesting

The 2nd Amendment was not controversial at all nor did it require any court action since

a) the federal government was never intended to act in a way where it could violate the second amendment

b) the federal government's leaders-at least for the first 140 years, never tried to use any part of Article one Section 8 to do an end around the tenth amendment or the second amendment.


Now, in the case of the states, they did have certain powers that can be seen as "infringing on the right to keep and bear arms". especially the bearing part. Laws preventing people from carrying weapons concealed certainly encroaches on BEARING arms. laws that say you cannot take a firearm into the magistrate's office, or into the public schools do too. and those powers are pretty much non-controversial.

and all was pretty much well until two things happened

1) the incorporation of the bill of rights and

2) FDR ignoring the obvious language of the constitution and the bill of rights

suddenly, the federal government-after 140 years, started using the commerce clause to justify all sorts of violations of the tenth amendment. Up to FDR, the CC was never interpreted as giving congress any power over private citizens. and when FDR and his minions pretended that the CC allowed federal gun control, the entire applecart was upset

incorporation did the same thing. The second amendment is a blanket prohibition on the federal government acting in an area it never had the power. so all these court attempts to somehow turn the blanket into a fish net with all sorts of holes has created a dishonest joke where people pretend that some kind of firearms can be banned and some sorts of "infringements" are ok as long as congress wants them

and the incorporation has caused equal problems the other way around because legitimate police powers of the states (and this includes areas that have nothing to do with firearms laws) are now subject to being struck down by a bill of rights PARTIALLY when in reality, the bill of rights was, as a noted, a complete ban when originally written and only intended to restrain the federal government limited to enumerated powers
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Celebrity said:
Gun control is not against the laws the framers handed down from on high, and I don't believe it is now any more "Orwellian" than it would have been back then.
Click to expand...

Unless a law is passable, effective, enforceable and Constitutional, it doesn't matter if it's Orwellian or not - it's a bad idea. The current Constitutional limits on gun control are defined by Miller, Heller and McDonald. In the majority opinion upholding the "assault weapons" ban in Connecticut and New York, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals stated, "In the absence of clearer guidance from the Supreme Court or stronger evidence in the record, we follow the approach taken by the District Courts and by the D.C. Circuit in Heller II and assume for the sake of argument that these “commonly used” weapons and magazines are also “typically possessed by law‐abiding citizens for lawful purposes. In short, we proceed on the assumption that these laws ban weapons protected by the Second Amendment."

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia”.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms “in common use for lawful purposes”.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government


.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Rucker61 said:
Surprisingly lacking in details; under 10 USC 311 and the various state militia laws, it appears that the current militia, both organized and unorganized, isn't failing to be "well-regulated".
Click to expand...

Nor has it been called. Thus congress has no say at all.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

danielpalos said:
yes, i have; i have also heard of valid arguments for a valid rebuttal;, and, i have also heard, only those fantastical enough to Only have fallacies as a form of rejection instead of any form of valid refutation, must be just plain, fantastical.
Click to expand...

While you may have heard of valid arguments and valid rebuttal you have never produced either. That has been pointed out to you many times. Apparently for you comprehension is in serious doubt.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Celebrity said:
The states have the power to implement gun control.
Click to expand...

So you claim. On what authority do States have the power to ignore the 2A

Not sure what the tenth amendment has to do with it.
Click to expand...

Simply to keep greedy people at bay.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

danielpalos said:
just clueless and Causeless; i got it.
Click to expand...

Then you failed to address any single point. Blanket denials are the evidence of the clueless and hopeless charlatans pleading to fallacy and rabid rambling of the delusional.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
Click to expand...

Has already been shown to be irrelevant. You are deliberately baiting and trolling

There are clearly, two classes of Persons of the People who are the Militia; well regulated or unorganized.
Click to expand...

You have not shown relevance in the face if incontrovertible evidence the 2A assigns ownership of the right to the people. You are deliberately baiting and trolling.

If you are not, well regulated, you are unorganized, by definition.
Click to expand...

Delusional babbling of the clueless and causeless. Besides it is a plea to fallacy.

Not well regulated is not correctly equipped, not correctly functional, not correctly trained. Organisation has nothing to do with it that you have shown.

Twilight babbling of the mindless indoctrinated left
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

danielpalos said:
What ever our federal Congress, prescribes it to be.
Click to expand...

Mindless babbling it is not possible to be anything congress decides. For example congress cannot order the militia to trade in postage stamps.

Special plea to absurdity and fallacy so typical of gun control lunatics.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

danielpalos said:
sure thing. it supports my contention and my argument.



There are clearly, two classes of Persons of the People who are the Militia; well regulated or unorganized.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I simplified it for you, since you are on the right.
Click to expand...

So in that quote...does it say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" or does it say something else?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Celebrity said:
Great. :thumbs:

I'm so glad they wrote down a clear and concise version of what they believed, and allowed us to modify that through amendment to the US Constitution.

I am adamant that thinking something, and not legislating it does not necessarily make it law. Given the amount of time between now and the ratification of the Bill of Rights, what the framers thought about natural rights may not apply to the legal code today in the same way it applied to the legal code then. Still, the law in question is identical to the original law.

So, you want us to believe that there is a rational basis for the Second Amendment being a special amendment due to its framers' historical status; as they say, that is history.

Gun control is not against the laws the framers handed down from on high, and I don't believe it is now any more "Orwellian" than it would have been back then.
Click to expand...

The 2A is like a property owner posting a sign. Entry denied. Gun control seeks to toss that sign and built a military base on the property to control it.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Master PO said:
1] the federal government can make no law concerning the militia WHILE the militia is under state authority, article 1 section 8 was used to write the militia acts which empowers the federal government over the state militias WHEN they are "called into service of the u.s." only, when a militia returns back to state authority, the federal government has no power over them anymore.

2] the federal government has no authority to make any laws concerning the people bearing arms
Click to expand...

Neither is correct.

Your point 1 - the section in Article I Section 8 clause 16 reads in part

TO PROVIDE FOR ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES .......

The first clause is independent of the limitation of the second clause and is separated by the word AND to indicate they are two different things. So Congress can provide for organizing the militia, for arming the militia, and for disciplining the militia no matter if they are officially called in the service of the USA or not.

You point 2 is not supported by anything in the Constitution and in fact is proved false byArticle I Section 8 clauses 1, 3, 16 and 18.

But then you already know this.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

danielpalos said:
sure thing. it supports my contention and my argument.

There are clearly, two classes of Persons of the People who are the Militia; well regulated or unorganized.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

I simplified it for you, since you are on the right.
Click to expand...

Let me simplify it for you.

On December 17, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice published an exhaustive Second Amendment memorandum. It concludes without reservation that "the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units."


Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right
The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of states or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.
August 24, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2004/08/31/op-olc-v028-p0126.pdf
 
Last edited:
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

haymarket said:
Neither is correct.

Your point 1 - the section in Article I Section 8 clause 16 reads in part

TO PROVIDE FOR ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES .......

The first clause is independent of the limitation of the second clause and is separated by the word AND to indicate they are two different things. So Congress can provide for organizing the militia, for arming the militia, and for disciplining the militia no matter if they are officially called in the service of the USA or not.

You point 2 is not supported by anything in the Constitution and in fact is proved false byArticle I Section 8 clauses 1, 3, 16 and 18.

But then you already know this.
Click to expand...

Which is applicable to the militia only and not the people. It is clearly state how could you possibly miss it. In any event organising the militia does not mean controlling arms. Since officers are selected by the States any "organisation" is not controlling arms beyond supply. Only those in service may be governed,
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Crimefree said:
Which is applicable to the militia only and not the people. It is clearly state how could you possibly miss it. In any event organising the militia does not mean controlling arms. Since officers are selected by the States any "organisation" is not controlling arms beyond supply. Only those in service may be governed,
Click to expand...

You want to see the quotes from gun supporters who have repeated told me that the MILITIA IS ALL THE PEOPLE?
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

haymarket said:
Neither is correct.

Your point 1 - the section in Article I Section 8 clause 16 reads in part

TO PROVIDE FOR ORGANIZING, ARMING, AND DISCIPLINING THE MILITIA, AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES .......

The first clause is independent of the limitation of the second clause and is separated by the word AND to indicate they are two different things. So Congress can provide for organizing the militia, for arming the militia, and for disciplining the militia no matter if they are officially called in the service of the USA or not.

You point 2 is not supported by anything in the Constitution and in fact is proved false byArticle I Section 8 clauses 1, 3, 16 and 18.

But then you already know this.
Click to expand...

wrong, you need to read the militia acts to also understand the 2nd

The Militia Act of 1792
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom