• 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!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%
  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%
  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%

  • Total voters
    148
I don't have to "prove" anything. But context can tell a lot of what is meant by a particular word.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the US and the framers just finishes, successfully, a revolution. They also knew that we were both militarily weak and our ability to defend the nation was based upon a militia concept where all adult male citizens participated with privately owned firearms. Any Infringement, by whatever definition you want to use, would weaken the Nations ability to defend itself.

So in context with the times and conditions at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the Founding fathers clearly intended "shall not be infringed" to mean it shall not be changed in anyway whatsoever that would weaken the peoples ability to act effectively as a militia when needed.

I also don't believe that our founding fathers ever intended that the "militia" concept would be taken away from the citizens.

They did not use those words. They did not say what you wanted them to say. Your problem is not with me but with what they failed to do.
 
No - it is the one which is little used.

Now all you have to do is show us that the founders intentionally and purposely ignored the far more common use of the term INFRINGED that was known to the people of its time and commonly used in favor of an obscure and little used meaning which totally changes the meaning of the commonly used term..

They used the the word infringed, which means to hinder.

Perhaps you can provide some substantiation for your opinion regarding the law. Contemporaneous sources, constitutional scholars? Anything other than your own personal opinion?
 
They used the the word infringed, which means to hinder.

Perhaps you can provide some substantiation for your opinion regarding the law. Contemporaneous sources, constitutional scholars? Anything other than your own personal opinion?

Ample evidence was provided for you. See posts
1111
1122
1124
1133
1136
1139
1145
1148

Its all there for you just as it was hours ago when you ignored it the first time. And the second time. And the third time. And so on and so on and so on where you end up still ignoring it even now.
 
Ample evidence was provided for you. See posts
1111
1122
1124
1133
1136
1139
1145
1148

Its all there for you just as it was hours ago when you ignored it the first time. And the second time. And the third time. And so on and so on and so on where you end up still ignoring it even now.

So you have no evidence at all from contemporaneous sources or from any constitutional scholars to back up your ludicrous interpretation of the second amendment?

I wonder whether anyone at all, besides for you, believes that the word infringed doesn't mean to hinder or encroach upon. Anyone?
 
So now all you have to do is to provide ample verifiable evidence that the founders intentionally and purposely passed up the conventional and widely used meaning in favor of an obscure and little used meaning and knowingly used that even though it gave the opposite take on their intent.

I wish you luck with that.

Of course, it brings up the more obvious question as to why you and others would willingly focus on that tiny little part of a little used definition and pass up the greater 95% of the larger definition.

Can you explain why you would do that?

it means the definition was different then,much like regulated then meant completely different than now.and further there are the federalist papers which were published and shown the dabatesand meanings of the bill ofrights,you clearly have been defeated by all logic and the founing fathers arguments,now you are simply ikn a state of denialselectively running around evidence you hate and choosing to use circular logic despite it dissagreesing with you in order to prolong a debate you lost long ago.
 
it means the definition was different then,much like regulated then meant completely different than now.and further there are the federalist papers which were published and shown the dabatesand meanings of the bill ofrights,you clearly have been defeated by all logic and the founing fathers arguments,now you are simply ikn a state of denialselectively running around evidence you hate and choosing to use circular logic despite it dissagreesing with you in order to prolong a debate you lost long ago.

"A debate you lost long ago." Very well said indeed.
 
It alone proves that there is language there which proves you wrong. First you claim there is not language then you carp and moan about the language that is there that was used to do what you claim cannot be done because there is no language to do it.


Make up your mind so we know what position you are taking here.

You might not like Article I , Section 8 - but thats really irrelevant to what reality is. It is part of the Constitution and if you do not like it - that is your right but it is irrelevant.

You and others who crave more government pretend it gives the government the power to do anything you want. I disagree and so does the tenth amendment
 
You and others who crave more government pretend it gives the government the power to do anything you want. I disagree and so does the tenth amendment

The states, when they established their compact between themselves, never gave the federal government any power to deny the right of any citizen of any state to keep and bear arms. The collectivist azzholes neglect to address that fact when they wish to impose their tyranny on upon the citizens of other states.
 
So you have no evidence at all from contemporaneous sources or from any constitutional scholars to back up your ludicrous interpretation of the second amendment?

I wonder whether anyone at all, besides for you, believes that the word infringed doesn't mean to hinder or encroach upon. Anyone?

Ample evidence was provided for you. See posts
1111
1122
1124
1133
1136
1139
1145
1148

Its all there for you just as it was hours ago when you ignored it the first time. And the second time. And the third time. And so on and so on and so on where you end up still ignoring it even now.
 
it means the definition was different then,much like regulated then meant completely different than now.and further there are the federalist papers which were published and shown the dabatesand meanings of the bill ofrights,you clearly have been defeated by all logic and the founing fathers arguments,now you are simply ikn a state of denialselectively running around evidence you hate and choosing to use circular logic despite it dissagreesing with you in order to prolong a debate you lost long ago.

If you feel it is important, please feel free to present any of that. I will read it.
 
You and others who crave more government pretend it gives the government the power to do anything you want. I disagree and so does the tenth amendment

You certainly can speak for yourself.

You do not speak for the tenth amendment regardless of what it says for itself and regardless if it is relevant to the topic.
 
You certainly can speak for yourself.

You do not speak for the tenth amendment regardless of what it says for itself and regardless if it is relevant to the topic.

the tenth amendment-though pissed upon by the patron saint of the big government left, the turd FDR, pretty much slaps down most of the anti gun nonsense the Dems wish to impose
 
You do not speak for the tenth amendment regardless of what it says for itself and regardless if it is relevant to the topic.

It speaks well enough for itself.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
It speaks well enough for itself.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


nanny state control freaks view that amendment the same way count Dracula views sunbathing
 
nanny state control freaks view that amendment the same way count Dracula views sunbathing

Like most of the Constitution, the language is clear and plain enough, unless you don't agree with it, and are determined to find some way to twist it to support some policy position that the plain language doesn't allow. But then we've seen this very thread go on for more than a thousand posts, mostly dedicated to someone trying to twist the Second Amendment in exactly that way.
 
Like most of the Constitution, the language is clear and plain enough, unless you don't agree with it, and are determined to find some way to twist it to support some policy position that the plain language doesn't allow. But then we've seen this very thread go on for more than a thousand posts, mostly dedicated to someone trying to twist the Second Amendment in exactly that way.

That is a very excellent point.
 
It speaks well enough for itself.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Its a good thing then that the Constitution speaks loud and clear in Article I, Section 8 then.
 
Yes, it was very stupid on her part, I agree. I'm sure the little boys parents will be suing her for all shes got too. I would.

How long would it take you to get your key and unlock your gun if a scumbag was busting into your bedroom at 2:30 in the morning?

That's why I like the idea of biometric locking.



If you are willing to sell that carbine, you have my word the bolt will be stored separately
 
Ample evidence was provided for you. See posts
1111
1122
1124
1133
1136
1139
1145
1148

Its all there for you just as it was hours ago when you ignored it the first time. And the second time. And the third time. And so on and so on and so on where you end up still ignoring it even now.

No contemporaneous sources? No constitutional scholars? Nothing at all besides for your own opinion?
 
They did not use those words. They did not say what you wanted them to say. Your problem is not with me but with what they failed to do.

What are you rambling about? Didn't use what words?

I am just as free to make an interpretation as you are. Because I also have Freedom of Speech, I have just as much right to express my interpretation as you do.

What makes you more of an expert on what the framers meant than anyone else? Have you proven that your own desires do not influence your opinion on the subject?

I, personally, believe that you have amply shown your "desires"/bias to have a particular interpretation accepted has been more than proven by your own posts. You have done more to discredit your interpretation and lend an extreme bias to it, than anything the rest of us could ever possibly do.
 
Its a good thing then that the Constitution speaks loud and clear in Article I, Section 8 then.

that is not relevant to the gun control debate and the "congress can do anything it wants" nonsense is what has screwed this country up. It completely ignores the tenth amendment and the very premise on which the constitution was based.

tell us what sentence or sub clause you claims allows regulation of small arms.
 
No contemporaneous sources? No constitutional scholars? Nothing at all besides for your own opinion?

Expert sources on the meaning of the terms are NOT my opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom