• 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
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.

What BIAS would that be? What are my DESIRES?
 
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.

I ner said that Congress can do anything it wants. You are lying about that.
 
I ner said that Congress can do anything it wants. You are lying about that.

well then maybe you will tell us what part of A1Sec8 justifies all the infringements you support then
 
What in that section describes imposing definitions of/or limitations to small arms permitted to be kept and born by the people?

Nothing. Nothing at all.
 
Nothing. Nothing at all.

I was expecting the standard "commerce" nonsense; if any thing, or any activity, in any way, involves the exchange of currency then congress can pounce upon the object, subject, personnel or service involved (or not involved) in that "commerce" and regulate it, without any limits. ;)

Edit: If that fails then impose a tax to do (or not to do) whatever the gov't wants done (or not done). :doh
 
well then maybe you will tell us what part of A1Sec8 justifies all the infringements you support then

Quite a bit of it actually.

It is always important to begin at the beginning with the Preamble. While in a strict sense, the Preamble does not confer specific powers, it does tell us what everything in it was written and what the goals of the Constitution are. Everything which follows must always be interpreted with the guiding principles contained in the Preamble in mind if there is any question at all about them.

Very clearly the Preamble tells us that among the purposes of the Constitution are
*** to form a more perfect union
*** insure domestic tranquility
*** provide for the common defense
*** promote the general welfare

There is no question that items 2 and 4 would allow apply to crime and how it effects Americans. So we need to keep that in the forefront of your thought on what follows.

Article I, Section 8 - 1 allows Congress to
*** lay and collect taxes
*** provide for the general welfare

Both of those could be employed on the issue of guns.

Article I, section 8 -3
*** empowers Congress the power to regulate imports so that could effect guns and ammunition from foreign nations
*** empowers Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and that would effect guns also

paragraph 16
*** allows for Congress to regulate the militia

paragraph 18
*** empowers Congress to make al laws which are necessary and proper to carry out the earlier powers

All that can be used in the laws applied to firearms providing they do NOT result in the DEFEAT or DESTRUCTION of the right to keep an bear arms.
 
All you have done is share your opinion as to which meaning you think was intended.

Actually, my opinion is supported by every single jurist who ever voted to accept and approve measures which by your own judgment are incremental encroachments constituting a much broader meaning of the word INFRINGED. As such, that list would include a legion of not only federal judges and supreme court justices but a good many constitutional experts as well.
 
From you posts, I get that you are biased towards and have a desire for restricting/banning certain weapons and ammunition magazines.

Once again, you confuse support with the right to bear arms with support for political positions taken by the gun lobby.
 
And you will fail again, as before.

By all means, do point to any 'failure' that you claim I suffered that is not a mere difference of opinion about interpretation.
 
Actually, my opinion is supported by every single jurist who ever voted to accept and approve measures which by your own judgment are incremental encroachments constituting a much broader meaning of the word INFRINGED. As such, that list would include a legion of not only federal judges and supreme court justices but a good many constitutional experts as well.

We have gone around and around over this hair splitting attitude of yours. How many straws may be added to the poor camel's back before that final straw is finally seen as an "infringement"?
 
Quite a bit of it actually.

It is always important to begin at the beginning with the Preamble. While in a strict sense, the Preamble does not confer specific powers, it does tell us what everything in it was written and what the goals of the Constitution are. Everything which follows must always be interpreted with the guiding principles contained in the Preamble in mind if there is any question at all about them.

Very clearly the Preamble tells us that among the purposes of the Constitution are
*** to form a more perfect union
*** insure domestic tranquility
*** provide for the common defense
*** promote the general welfare

There is no question that items 2 and 4 would allow apply to crime and how it effects Americans. So we need to keep that in the forefront of your thought on what follows.

Article I, Section 8 - 1 allows Congress to
*** lay and collect taxes
*** provide for the general welfare

Both of those could be employed on the issue of guns.

Article I, section 8 -3
*** empowers Congress the power to regulate imports so that could effect guns and ammunition from foreign nations
*** empowers Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and that would effect guns also

paragraph 16
*** allows for Congress to regulate the militia

paragraph 18
*** empowers Congress to make al laws which are necessary and proper to carry out the earlier powers

All that can be used in the laws applied to firearms providing they do NOT result in the DEFEAT or DESTRUCTION of the right to keep an bear arms.

that is just absolutely pathetic if one considers the premise that the founders were creating a limited federal government. regulating the militia does not create a power to regulate small arms owned by the citizenry.

the interstate commerce nonsense is just that-it was a fiction created by FDR that took him and his AG months to come up with

and you have previously stated that if you OWN ONE GUN your "enjoyment of the right" exists
that is ridiculous
 
We have gone around and around over this hair splitting attitude of yours. How many straws may be added to the poor camel's back before that final straw is finally seen as an "infringement"?

Nothing you just wrote negates the statement of mine which preceded your outburst against me. Again, here is what I said

Actually, my opinion is supported by every single jurist who ever voted to accept and approve measures which by your own judgment are incremental encroachments constituting a much broader meaning of the word INFRINGED. As such, that list would include a legion of not only federal judges and supreme court justices but a good many constitutional experts as well.

Perhaps you could prove that incorrect instead of attacking me? That would be most appreciated.
 
that is just absolutely pathetic if one considers the premise that the founders were creating a limited federal government. regulating the militia does not create a power to regulate small arms owned by the citizenry.

the interstate commerce nonsense is just that-it was a fiction created by FDR that took him and his AG months to come up with

and you have previously stated that if you OWN ONE GUN your "enjoyment of the right" exists
that is ridiculous

Your problem is not with me. Your problem lies with the language of the US Constitution. Unfortunately for you, it says what it says regardless if you support it or not, if you approve or not, if you like it or not, or if it does what you want or not.
 
paragraph 16
*** allows for Congress to regulate the militia


Then what would be the point of even having a militia since, in my opinion, militias are intended to protect us from congress and the likes.

Just sayin'.....
 
Your problem is not with me. Your problem lies with the language of the US Constitution. Unfortunately for you, it says what it says regardless if you support it or not, if you approve or not, if you like it or not, or if it does what you want or not.

no I know what the Constitution says. I know the foundation it was based upon and the concept of a limited government. The problems we have stem from FDR and his lapdogs who decided that the constitution, as intended and as interpreted for 140 or so years would prevent their socialist wet dream from materializing so they used their power and the crisis of the time to mutate, fold spindle and mutilate the document so as to claim it supported their massive government expansion
 
no I know what the Constitution says. I know the foundation it was based upon and the concept of a limited government.

We do now have limited government. We always have had limited government. There is no issue here to complain about.
 
Nothing you just wrote negates the statement of mine which preceded your outburst against me. Again, here is what I said



Perhaps you could prove that incorrect instead of attacking me? That would be most appreciated.

Each court case is different, so each judge's decision is different, yet limitted to the issue(s) of that law/situation. You will note that Heller "stepped on" or overrode many prior SCOTUS decisions in finding both an individual right, separate and unrealted to militia service, and said state/federal jusrisdiction did not matter. Although the decision did not preclude which "infringemnts" may stand, it struck down some very big ones; locks, safes and "keeping in a disabled state", not distinguishing between handgun, shotgun and rifle and not allowing special LEO "exception" provisions.
 
Then what would be the point of even having a militia since, in my opinion, militias are intended to protect us from congress and the likes.

Just sayin'.....

That would be a question for those who wrote that language into the Constitution. All I was asked to is to cite it as being part of that document which allows for regulation or power in the area of firearms.
 
Each court case is different, so each judge's decision is different, yet limitted to the issue(s) of that law/situation. You will note that Heller "stepped on" or overrode many prior SCOTUS decisions in finding both an individual right, separate and unrealted to militia service, and said state/federal jusrisdiction did not matter. Although the decision did not preclude which "infringemnts" may stand, it struck down some very big ones; locks, safes and "keeping in a disabled state", not distinguishing between handguh, shotgun and pistol and not allowing special LEO "exception" provisions.

And what you just wrote proves that I am correct. There indeed can be what some consider as incremental encroachments that insist constitute the right has been INFRINGED but that has not been the agreement of many many courts and justices over our long history. Thus, the idea that some have pushed here that the meaning of INFRINGED is something as small as HINDER is ridiculous and not supported by reality.
 
And what you just wrote proves that I am correct. There indeed can be what some consider as incremental encroachments that insist constitute the right has been INFRINGED but that has not been the agreement of many many courts and justices over our long history. Thus, the idea that some have pushed here that the meaning of INFRINGED is something as small as HINDER is ridiculous and not supported by reality.

Reality, like the Constitution, is in the eye of the bee holder, in our system of gov't that is ultimately the majority of our current crew of nine robed umpires that may, or may not, honor any particular challenge flag thown. ;) So you win (actually only force a draw) in all arguments by simply saying "maybe" the law says what I think the law says, or "maybe" it says what you want it to say. I am done with you.
 
Back
Top Bottom