• 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!

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 18.2%
  • No

    Votes: 53 80.3%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Total voters
    66
  • Poll closed .
claiming that this only part of the bill of rights failed to acknowledge an individual right is just silly.

what prior natural right do you claim the founders wanted to recognize

give it up Haymarket, you have twisted your arguments into a pretzel and they are contradicting each other

Not at all is it silly. I have shown you how the decision could have been written. You do not like that. Fine. But I have shown it just the same.

You are merely against it because my approach would have reaffirmed the right of Congress to pass regulations in this area and are against that as part of your own political belief system. You being against the approach does NOT make it contradictory nor silly. It simply makes you against it because of your own beliefs and political agenda.

As to a prior natural right - there is no such thing and you have never been able to prove any such thing exists outside of a willful belief which exists only in the mind of the believer.
 
Last edited:
IMO anyone who won't read Heller, shouldn't comment on the topic.

...or vote.

Bull****. I don't need Heller to understand the Second Amendment.

Or vote? That's just asinine.
smiley-rolleyes010.gif
 
Bull****. I don't need Heller to understand the Second Amendment.

Or vote? That's just asinine.
smiley-rolleyes010.gif

You should hope and pray that people opposed to the gun lobby DO NOT read Heller since Scalia contradicts himself with his cited sources on the meaning of the terms in it.

Let me quote from Scalia's majority decision in Heller

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).

I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:

The term “bear arms” is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. To “bear arms against” means “to be engaged in hostilities with.” The word “arms” itself has an overwhelmingly military meaning, referring to weapons of offense or armor of defense. In every instance we have found where the term “bear arms” (or “bearing arms” or “bear arms against”) is employed, without any additional modifying language attached, the term unquestionably is used in its idiomatic military sense. It is only where additional language is tacked on, either to bend the idiom by specifying a particular type of fighting or to break the idiom by adding incompatible language, that the meaning of “bear arms” deviates. In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.


So please tell us how Scalia came to the opposite decision from the source he lists as an important one in helping to formulate his understanding and interpretation of the Amendment?
 
You should hope and pray that people opposed to the gun lobby DO NOT read Heller since Scalia contradicts himself with his cited sources on the meaning of the terms in it.

Let me quote from Scalia's majority decision in Heller



I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:




So please tell us how Scalia came to the opposite decision from the source he lists as an important one in helping to formulate his understanding and interpretation of the Amendment?

I don't really give a ****. The Second Amendment is clear, without referencing any outside sources, and strictly from a language perspective. Which really shouldn't even be needed. The meaning is clear. It is only because of gun hating liberals, that this argument even needs to take place.

Riddle me this Batman, why does the 2A use the term "the people"?
 
I don't really give a ****.

Of course you don't. Why confuse you with facts and reality when you seem so comfy and secure in your own belief system?

why does the 2A use the term "the people"?

the first half of the same sentence in the same Amendment in the same Constitution tells you who the people they are referring to are. Or lets look at the answer as given by the previously experts Scalia claimed he was guided by in his majority opinion:

In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.
 
Of course you don't. Why confuse you with facts and reality when you seem so comfy and secure in your own belief system?



the first half of the same sentence in the same Amendment in the same Constitution tells you who the people they are referring to are. Or lets look at the answer as given by the previously experts Scalia claimed he was guided by in his majority opinion:

That doesn't even make sense. If the founding fathers wanted arms to only be kept by an organized militia, why didn't they simply state that? Why didn't they say, "the right of the militia"? Please give an example of any other time the term "the people" is used in the Constitution, where it means anything other than the whole of the people.

At the time the Constitution was drafted, the militia drew from the whole of the people,and they supplied their own arms. That is why this is emphasized by the 2A.
 
That doesn't even make sense. If the founding fathers wanted arms to only be kept by an organized militia, why didn't they simply state that? Why didn't they say, "the right of the militia"? Please give an example of any other time the term "the people" is used in the Constitution, where it means anything other than the whole of the people.

At the time the Constitution was drafted, the militia drew from the whole of the people,and they supplied their own arms. That is why this is emphasized by the 2A.

No it did not. the militia was white free men between the ages of 18 and 45. that would be less than 30% of the population.
 
Not at all is it silly. I have shown you how the decision could have been written. You do not like that. Fine. But I have shown it just the same.

You are merely against it because my approach would have reaffirmed the right of Congress to pass regulations in this area and are against that as part of your own political belief system. You being against the approach does NOT make it contradictory nor silly. It simply makes you against it because of your own beliefs and political agenda.

As to a prior natural right - there is no such thing and you have never been able to prove any such thing exists outside of a willful belief which exists only in the mind of the believer.

1) Congress has no such proper power

2) the stupid tactic of trying to prove "natural rights" don't exist is a straw man. The fact that you avoid is that the FOUNDERS believed that there were such things and used the BoR to recognize them / Your constant claim that NR do not exist has absolutely no relevance nor does the actual question of whether such rights exist. The fact is, the founders thought such rights exist and anyone who sought to RECOGNIZE a NR with a Amendment would not INTEND that amendment to do something other than recognize the right

So your worthless interpretation of the 2A is worthless because it is not consistent with what men who believed in NR would do.

Your entire argument scheme is self contradictory.
 
I don't really give a ****. The Second Amendment is clear, without referencing any outside sources, and strictly from a language perspective. Which really shouldn't even be needed. The meaning is clear. It is only because of gun hating liberals, that this argument even needs to take place.

Riddle me this Batman, why does the 2A use the term "the people"?

The people who spend so much time nuancing the language in the second and pretending it is hard to understand are those who understand what it says and THEY DO NOT LIKE WHAT IT MEANS

none of the disgusting Democrap schemes against our rights are constitutional. We know it, THEY know it, and that is why they spend so much time pretending the 2A says something other than what it does
 
That doesn't even make sense. If the founding fathers wanted arms to only be kept by an organized militia, why didn't they simply state that? Why didn't they say, "the right of the militia"? Please give an example of any other time the term "the people" is used in the Constitution, where it means anything other than the whole of the people.

At the time the Constitution was drafted, the militia drew from the whole of the people,and they supplied their own arms. That is why this is emphasized by the 2A.

The 2A is all about what the federal government is not permitted to do, Yet Haymarket claims the 2A is telling the federal government that it can organize a federal militia. The entire environment surrounding the BoR is contrary to Haymarket's extremely statist misinterpretation of the 2A
 
No it did not. the militia was white free men between the ages of 18 and 45. that would be less than 30% of the population.

that is worthless argument. in 1790 or so that was a majority of the voting population
 
The 2A is all about what the federal government is not permitted to do, Yet Haymarket claims the 2A is telling the federal government that it can organize a federal militia. The entire environment surrounding the BoR is contrary to Haymarket's extremely statist misinterpretation of the 2A

where does the 2A ammendment state that the federal government can not make laws concerning firearms?

are gun laws of any kind considered an infringement?
 
where does the 2A ammendment state that the federal government can not make laws concerning firearms?

are gun laws of any kind considered an infringement?

the question you seem to studiously ignore is WHERE the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was given such a power

Shall not be infringed it pretty obvious to me. I guess to those who want gun regulations beyond what states can properly impose, don't really care what the 2A or the Constitution says
 
No it did not. the militia was white free men between the ages of 18 and 45. that would be less than 30% of the population.

Okay, then let's play out this silly game of semantics to it's logical conclusion. Are you seriously trying to convince us that the founders meant that only, " white free men between the ages of 18 and 45", were "the people" referred to by the 2A? If that were the case, why didn't the founders simply say so? Why use the unambiguous term "the people"?

I noticed you failed to provide an example of the Constitution using the term "the people" aside from the 2A, where the meaning can be anything other than the whole of the people. Did you forget?
 
1) Congress has no such proper power.

Article I Section 8 says otherwise. But you know that since I have informed you of it many many many times in many many treads.



2) the stupid tactic of trying to prove "natural rights" don't exist is a straw man.

Your serious misuse of the term shows you again have no idea what it means. The fact is that natural rights are a belief. They exist only in the mind of the willful believer.



The fact that you avoid is that the FOUNDERS believed that there were such things and used the BoR to recognize them / Your constant claim that NR do not exist has absolutely no relevance nor does the actual question of whether such rights exist. The fact is, the founders thought such rights exist and anyone who sought to RECOGNIZE a NR with a Amendment would not INTEND that amendment to do something other than recognize the right

people can believe in gods or God or faeries or Santa Claus. that does not make them real.


Your entire argument scheme is self contradictory

No it is not. It makes perfect sense in the real world divorced from a belief natural rights, elves, fairies and gods dispensing rights like Halloween candy to costumed toddlers disguised as Superman and Barnie.
 
Okay, then let's play out this silly game of semantics to it's logical conclusion. Are you seriously trying to convince us that the founders meant that only, " white free men between the ages of 18 and 45", were "the people" referred to by the 2A? If that were the case, why didn't the founders simply say so? Why use the unambiguous term "the people"?

I noticed you failed to provide an example of the Constitution using the term "the people" aside from the 2A, where the meaning can be anything other than the whole of the people. Did you forget?

They did say who they were talking about in the first half of the Amendment. the experts on linguistics said as much in the Scalia opinion:

In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.
 
where does the 2A ammendment state that the federal government can not make laws concerning firearms?

are gun laws of any kind considered an infringement?

since the bill of rights was created specificity [its sole purpose] as a prohibition on federal government only, to prevent them from infringing on the rights of the people and to reassure the anti-federalist against a federal government they thought to powerful, ..........but also securing their votes to ratify the Constitution.

the federal government by constitutional law, is granted no authority to create any guns laws in the life's liberty and property of the people who reside in the 50 states.
 
Article I Section 8 says otherwise. But you know that since I have informed you of it many many many times in many many treads.





Your serious misuse of the term shows you again have no idea what it means. The fact is that natural rights are a belief. They exist only in the mind of the willful believer.





people can believe in gods or God or faeries or Santa Claus. that does not make them real.




No it is not. It makes perfect sense in the real world divorced from a belief natural rights, elves, fairies and gods dispensing rights like Halloween candy to costumed toddlers disguised as Superman and Barnie.

I want you to cite the specific language that actually mentions a federal gun control power. We know that Liberals pretend and divine such a power but I want to see the plain language

and again this is disingenuous given how you construe the 2A and then start engaging in a completely different set of standards for Sec 8. SORRY, there is no such power given and you know that
 
Here is the bottom line. SOme people don't like other people owning guns. They also don't like the fact that some states refuse to persecute gun owners. So these gun haters dishonestly and nefariously claim that the the federal government can persecute gun ownership on a national level

Now the first time this happened it was nothing more than a patent and craven attempt by FDR to pander to voters over the worries about bootleggers with machine guns. and FDR needed a power to pander so he dishonestly changed the constitution to "obtain" that power to pander.

Currently, its nothing more than lefties wanting to harass conservative gun owners on a national level
 
They did say who they were talking about in the first half of the Amendment. the experts on linguistics said as much in the Scalia opinion:

No they didn't, they merely said a well regulated militia was necessary, they never said arms could only be kept in that context. In fact, they said just the opposite.


Why do you keep tap dancing around my other question? Afraid it may bolster my point?
countryboy said:
I noticed you failed to provide an example of the Constitution using the term "the people" aside from the 2A, where the meaning can be anything other than the whole of the people. Did you forget?
 
No they didn't, they merely said a well regulated militia was necessary, they never said arms could only be kept in that context. In fact, they said just the opposite.


Why do you keep tap dancing around my other question? Afraid it may bolster my point?

Just remember this. Gun haters know the 2A prevents federal gun rights encroachments and they also know that the Constitution never gave a limited federal government any specific power to intrude on gun rights. But harassing gun owners means more to them then being honest about the founders. So they pretend that a federal power to harass gun ownership exists
 
Yes,

And I will try to take a neutral stance on it. The 2nd Amendment should be re-written from;

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

To (For gun nuts);

The right of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense, shall not be infringed.

To (For anti-gun nuts);

The right of the people to self defense, shall not be infringed.

The latter, would clarify the rights of citizens to own firearms, apart from being in a militia, to defend themselves. The second version would simply allow us to debate and determine what method of self defense is legal and would allow each state to legislate that separate from the Federal government.
 
So you have thrown in the towel apparently and now its you playing Miss Manners advice column. :doh Fine with me. :roll:

What did I claim you said that you didnt? I explicitly said that you used an invalid quote to make your point and you denied it.

I explained and bolded exactly how I interpreted and that the quote contained exactly that.

I can do this all day....man up and admit you were wrong or explain how the quote supported your position. I have firewood to split and it's raining out.

Can you support the quote you posted and why you posted it or are you in the habit of posting things you do not understand?
 
Can you support the quote you posted and why you posted it or are you in the habit of posting things you do not understand?

I think your analysis is correct.
 
They did say who they were talking about in the first half of the Amendment. the experts on linguistics said as much in the Scalia opinion:

except MIlitary service is not a natural right that would be part of the Bill of rights

major fail
 
Back
Top Bottom