• 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!

Would you want a gun in this situation?

Would you want a gun in this situation?


  • Total voters
    59
It is an absurb scenario that happens so rarely that you probably have a better chance of getting hit by lightning. That said...to play along with your little skewed game. Are you aware that a large number of people killed in these types of situations are killed with their own guns?

So a different scenario that probably is more likely to occur than yours would be:
It's late at night in your house, you and your family are asleep, when armed men break in. You don't know if they're there to rob you, rape you, murder you, or all of the above. At that point would you wish you had a gun?

At that point, I wouldn't wish I had a gun, I would have a gun.
 
is not part of the Constitution and you darn well know it from our previous conversations in which you were unable to present a single shred of evidence that it was ratified.

all of the clauses in the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive clauses placed right on top of congress head!
 
all of the clauses in the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive clauses placed right on top of congress head!


Your personal opinion is irrelevant next to the actual language of the Constitution. It means nothing and has no force of law.
 
Your personal opinion is irrelevant next to the actual language of the Constitution. It means nothing and has no force of law.

sorry not my opinion...James Madison's fact

Madison ---The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions." Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.



"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
 
sorry not my opinion...James Madison's fact

Madison ---The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions." Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.

James Madisons opinion is also irrelevant as it also has no force of law.

You lied about what the Second Amendment says. Your argument is without truth or honor.
 
Again, where do we draw the line?

That question is for you to answer. You claim to not want to deny law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear, then list those I don't need, to include AR 15 styles, sniper rifles, any weapons based on military calibers, .22s if they look scary. Many others.

Why don't you tell me what you think I should be allowed to keep and bear? It shouldn't take long.
 
James Madisons opinion is also irrelevant as it also has no force of law.

You lied about what the Second Amendment says. Your argument is without truth or honor.


sorry, you cant deal with truth...

all the 10 amendments are declaratory restrictive to the federal government...they give the government no powers at all!
 
is not part of the Constitution and you darn well know it from our previous conversations in which you were unable to present a single shred of evidence that it was ratified.

Clue for you Herr Barkmann: the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are two different things with two very different wordings and cover two (or more) very different subjects. Do NOT confuse one with the other. Do NOT attempt to substitute the language contained in one for the other.

lets see ...the preamble to the constitution is part of the constitution , but the preamble to the bill of rights is not part of the constitution???...........please, you can do better than that.
 
It is totally honest. It DOES NOT HAVE TO MENTION FIREARMS. The powers authorize Congress and lots of things can be included in taking those actions - firearms just one of them. But, your own argument is incorrect as paragraphs specificly covers arms.

nope-it was not intended to be a general grant of power

we all know FDR didn't like that and got his pet monkeys to ignore the 10A

what is hilarious is how you claim sections that were never seen as gun control power grants for 130 years clearly intend that while limiting the 2A so much as to render it meaningless

in other words-your constitutional interpretation is either narrow or expansive depending on what outcome you want
 
It doesn't specify, mostly because at the time, the people were the military, there was no absurd dick waving contest going on. It also doesn't restrict private citizens from owning nukes. Do you support that too?

that's just stupid. Nukes are not arms but ordnance and since you believe the the government should be able to impose all sorts of limitations, its a dishonest argument
 
That is my general principal, I don't have a firm number of acceptable deaths per minute, nor the technical knowledge to specify types of guns.

you would agree with me that police are not issued weapons for offensive purposes but only self defense? so why not say citizens can have the same self defensive weapons civilian police departments are issued for purely self defensive purposes?
 
that's just stupid. Nukes are not arms but ordnance and since you believe the the government should be able to impose all sorts of limitations, its a dishonest argument

Yet there are tons of Libertarians who make that exact argument. Nice try to squirm your way out of an honest question though.
 
sorry, you cant deal with truth...

all the 10 amendments are declaratory restrictive to the federal government...they give the government no powers at all!

The truth is that your opinion is irrelevant next to the actual Constitution. can you deal with that? :roll:
 
lets see ...the preamble to the constitution is part of the constitution , but the preamble to the bill of rights is not part of the constitution???...........please, you can do better than that.

Yes I can do better. lets make a wager Herr Barkmann. If you can offer proof that the preamble to the Bill of Rights was ratified by the proper number of states and is an official part of the Constitution then I will leave here and never return in any form. If you fail to do so then you leave and never return.

Now you cannot get any better than that.

Ready to put your existence where your beliefs are?
 
Yet there are tons of Libertarians who make that exact argument. Nice try to squirm your way out of an honest question though.

I have been posting on guns probably longer and in more depth than anyone on DP though there was this one guy who shows up every once in awhile who is pretty specific and well educated.

I have always said the founders saw WEAPONS OF WAR in three CATEGORIES

ARMS-what someone would keep and bear-muskets, spears, lances, swords, pistols, rifles, shotguns
the stuff you'd bring to the muster if the village militia was called up

ORDNANCE-bombs, rockets, grenades, greek fire

ARTILLERY-Cannon, howitzers, mortars
 
The US Supreme Court says otherwise. So you have your right to an opinion but as it has no force of law and the actual force of law says the opposite - that is all that counts in the real world USA of 2014.

This will help you on that issue:

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I

To be honest though, the Supreme Court is often hobbled by the fact that the genie is out of the bottle and there's no real way to put it back and therefore, their decisions need to be practical, even if they stray from the Constitution.
 
The truth is that your opinion is irrelevant next to the actual Constitution. can you deal with that? :roll:

its rich that you talk about the TEXT OF THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION when you do creative interpretation for the Commerce Clause and then pretend SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does not prevent infringement


the fact that it took 130+ years for someone to "find" a power to regulate small arms in the Commerce Clause shows how bankrupt your argument is
 
The US Supreme Court says otherwise. So you have your right to an opinion but as it has no force of law and the actual force of law says the opposite - that is all that counts in the real world USA of 2014.

This will help you on that issue:

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I

that's another dishonest argument because we all understand that the ND supreme court ignored the actual words of the constitution to suck up to FDR
 
I have been posting on guns probably longer and in more depth than anyone on DP though there was this one guy who shows up every once in awhile who is pretty specific and well educated.

I have always said the founders saw WEAPONS OF WAR in three CATEGORIES

ARMS-what someone would keep and bear-muskets, spears, lances, swords, pistols, rifles, shotguns
the stuff you'd bring to the muster if the village militia was called up

ORDNANCE-bombs, rockets, grenades, greek fire

ARTILLERY-Cannon, howitzers, mortars

Which, of course, didn't apply to the people at the time that the Constitution was written. People were free to own cannons and other period armaments and were expected to bring them out for use in time of war. There was no standing military, the second amendment was not written with one in mind. But don't let that get in the way of your little rant.
 
To be honest though, the Supreme Court is often hobbled by the fact that the genie is out of the bottle and there's no real way to put it back and therefore, their decisions need to be practical, even if they stray from the Constitution.

that is essentially the Scalia and Calebresi (Steven, not Guido, argument which has been called (By Calabresi most recently) the "Faint hearted originalist position
 
Which, of course, didn't apply to the people at the time that the Constitution was written. People were free to own cannons and other period armaments and were expected to bring them out for use in time of war. There was no standing military, the second amendment was not written with one in mind. But don't let that get in the way of your little rant.

that's a specious argument the fact that people owned cannon was not because of the 2A.
 
Yes I can do better. lets make a wager Herr Barkmann. If you can offer proof that the preamble to the Bill of Rights was ratified by the proper number of states and is an official part of the Constitution then I will leave here and never return in any form. If you fail to do so then you leave and never return.

Now you cannot get any better than that.

Ready to put your existence where your beliefs are?


here you go hay......its a picture of the bill of rights with the preamble on it.

Bill of Rights Large View


George Washington had fourteen handwritten copies of the Bill of Rights made, one for Congress and one for each of the original thirteen states.[95] The copies for Georgia, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania went missing. The New York copy is thought to have been destroyed in a fire,[96] whereas the Pennsylvania copy was taken by a soldier sometime in April 1865.[97] Two unidentified copies of the missing four (thought to be the Georgia and Maryland copies) survive; one is in the National Archives,[98][99] and the other is in the New York Public Library.[100] North Carolina's copy was stolen by a Union soldier in April 1865 and returned to North Carolina in 2005 by FBI Special Agent Robert King Wittman.[100][101]

The National Archives and Records Administration copy of the Bill of Rights is on display in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom. The Rotunda itself was constructed in the 1950s and dedicated in 1952 by President Harry S. Truman, who said, "Only as these documents are reflected in the thoughts and acts of Americans, can they remain symbols of power that can move the world. That power is our faith in human liberty".[102]

After fifty years, signs of deterioration in the casing were noted, while the documents themselves appeared to be well preserved.[103] Accordingly, the casing was updated and the Rotunda rededicated on September 17, 2003. In his dedicatory remarks, President George W. Bush stated, "The true [American] revolution was not to defy one earthly power, but to declare principles that stand above every earthly power—the equality of each person before God, and the responsibility of government to secure the rights of all."[104] In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared December 15 to be Bill of Rights Day, commemorating the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.[105] In 1991, the Virginia copy of the Bill of Rights toured the country in honor of its bicentennial, visiting the capitals of all fifty states.[106]
 
that is essentially the Scalia and Calebresi (Steven, not Guido, argument which has been called (By Calabresi most recently) the "Faint hearted originalist position

The only thing that matters is the original position, as written in the original documents because that's what was actually ratified by the states. Twisting things to make them conform to a modern approach isn't Constitutional.
 
Back
Top Bottom