• 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 .
The south was a different country in thise days; remember? Papist immigrants disarmed? You mean Irish Catholics: you're going to have to prove that one.

And Clinton tried to disarm citizens: right.

Oh, and BTW I reported you for saying that I'm not being truthful. That's BS dude; I wish you'd stop that.

So its ignorance of history?

The strange birth of NY

The Criminal Steering of Gun Control | Buckeye Firearms Association


n 1911, Sullivan's constituents, (Irish and Jewish mobsters who put him into office), shared a growing problem with him. Immigrant Italian mafia members were horning in on what had once been their exclusive area of criminal operations. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. Naturally, in order to protect themselves and their property, honest travelers began to arm themselves. Gunfights in what was to become Little Italy became more frequent. This both raised the criminal's risk while conducting armed robbery, and reduced the gang's profit. Sullivan's criminal constituents then "lobbied" Sullivan to introduce a law prohibiting concealed carry of pistols in order to reduce the risk to his criminal constituents while robbing honest people. That Sullivan was successful in passing a law disarming honest citizens so as to aid and abet other criminals is well documented. -


Niagara Falls Reporter OPINION



n 1911, the Irish and Jewish mobsters who put him into office faced a growing problem -- the Italians. Immigrant mafiosi newly arrived from Sicily and Naples were horning in on what had once been their exclusive domain. Gunfights on the Lower East Side and the neighborhood around Mulberry Street that was to become Little Italy grew more and more frequent, and it was getting so that you couldn't even shake down a barber shop or a greengrocer without some guy fresh off the boat taking a shot at you.

Not to worry, Big Tim told the boys. And in 1911, he took care of the problem.

The Sullivan Act was passed into law in New York state in 1911 and remains Big Tim's primary legacy. It effectively banned most people from owning and, especially, carrying handguns. Under the onerous conditions of the corrupted law, a peaceable citizen of sound mind could apply for a pistol permit, but if any of a number of elected or appointed officials objected to its issuance, he or she could be denied the license. The law remains in effect to this day and has been used as the basis for gun laws in many other states and municipalities.
 
That is false. Barron v. Baltimore stands for the proposition that the Bill of Rights, as written, applied only to the United States government. It is black-letter law today. The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 in no way made the decision irrelevant, as you assert. Three decades later, in fact, the Fourteenth Amendment made Barron v. Baltimore very relevant.

It was exactly the fact that nothing in the Bill of Rights applied to the states that prompted a long series of Supreme Court decisions that started about 1900--the most recent one being McDonald v. Chicago several years ago. In these decisions, which developed the Court's "incorporation doctrine," it held that first one part of the Bill of Rights and then another was incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and through it applied to the states.

So even by your own telling of the tale the issue has long been decided and the pronouncement in Barron is now irrelevant. And for most it always was as it was routinely ignored.
 
Repeating plainly false statements over and over on these threads doesn't make them any less false. It just teaches more and more people about your credibility.

No one accused of a crime would have had a constitutional right to a public trial in a state court until 1948, when the Supreme Court extended that part of the Sixth Amendment to the states in In Re Oliver. And no one accused of a crime would have had a constitutional right to a speedy trial in a state court until 1967, when the Court extended that part of the same amendment to the states in Klopfer v. North Carolina.

Please present the verifiable evidence that nobody got their 6th Amendment rights until the two cases you just listed.

Your false claim also ignores the fact, which the Court stated in Heller, that the Court considers the rights guaranteed by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments in particular to predate the Constitution.

And when the Court made this heartfelt statement of belief - where did it say we could find them before written constitutions?
 
So even by your own telling of the tale the issue has long been decided and the pronouncement in Barron is now irrelevant. And for most it always was as it was routinely ignored.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The principle that the Bill of Rights as written applied only to the U.S. has never been ignored. It's still the reason, just to cite one common example, that people charged with serious crimes like murder have a Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury in a federal court, but not in state courts.
 
Please present the verifiable evidence that nobody got their 6th Amendment rights until the two cases you just listed.

I didn't say "nobody got" those rights. People charged with federal crimes had them all along. I said that before those decisions, the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the rights you mentioned did not apply to people charged with crimes in state courts. Because state constitutions often have a lot of similarities to the Constitution of the U.S., it's possible some states chose to guarantee those rights. But obviously the states involved in the two decisions I cited had not been guaranteeing them, and I'm sure quite a few others hadn't, either. You have the titles of those cases. Read them, if you want to know more.

And when the Court made this heartfelt statement of belief - where did it say we could find them before written constitutions?

The Court has recognized for a long time that certain rights predated the Constitution. What was relevant was that by that time, those rights were already widely recognized in the common law, both here and in England. A great many documents and statements from the time of the Constitution also make that clear. As regards the Second Amendment right, for example, the Heller decision, is loaded with them. I'm sure a number of Supreme Court decisions also document the ancient lineage of the First and Fourth Amendment rights. And Boumediene v. Bush does this for the right to habeas. I'll leave the question of how, even earlier, these rights first came to be recognized in English common law to legal historians and political philosophers--I don't have time to research it.
 
You have no idea what you're talking about. The principle that the Bill of Rights as written applied only to the U.S. has never been ignored. It's still the reason, just to cite one common example, that people charged with serious crimes like murder have a Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury in a federal court, but not in state courts.

And other than the Fifth Amendment? What about the other rights we have from the Bill of Rights? Are you really trying to state that citizens in the states did not get those either because of the Barron/Baltimore ruling? Because unless you can - it does NOT say what some here are trying to make it say.

You miss the point. So we have a court decision in the 1830's that helped a state save money. And then it was supplanted by the 14th Amendment. And from that a poster wants to make the case that this blip proves that our rights do not come from the Bill of Rights written decades and generations before this one case even though people still got their rights during those years?

Yeah - go with that as it makes perfect sense.... not in this world but there might be one out there where it does.

Here is evidence that the decision did NOT have the effect some want us to think it did

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_barron.html

Barron v. Baltimore's simple rule, that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and not to the states, was, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "not of much difficulty" -- self-evident from the structure and literal language of the Constitution. However, in spite of the Court's ruling, state courts still interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying to their own governments, viewing them as reflections of the general laws in Anglo-American culture

Just as I stated earlier and there is the verifiable evidence of it.

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

The decision was initially ignored by the growing abolitionist movement, some of whom maintained that Congress could constitutionally abolish slavery as a method of protecting slaves' rights under the Bill of Rights. It was largely unknown in the 1860's; during a debate in Congress on the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator John Bingham had to read part of Marshall's opinion out loud to the Senate.[2]

While the case is not in Shakespeares words "much ado about nothing" - it certainly is NOT what some here are trying to make it into nor is it any proof that the Bill of Rights does not give us rights - which was the point of the poster who brought it up in the first place.
 
Last edited:
And other than the Fifth Amendment? What about the other rights we have from the Bill of Rights? Are you really trying to state that citizens in the states did not get those either because of the Barron/Baltimore ruling? Because unless you can - it does NOT say what some here are trying to make it say.

You miss the point. So we have a court decision in the 1830's that helped a state save money. And then it was supplanted by the 14th Amendment. And from that a poster wants to make the case that this blip proves that our rights do not come from the Bill of Rights written decades and generations before this one case even though people still got their rights during those years?

Yeah - go with that as it makes perfect sense.... not in this world but there might be one out there where it does.

Here is evidence that the decision did NOT have the effect some want us to think it did

The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Barron v. Baltimore (1833) | PBS



Just as I stated earlier and there is the verifiable evidence of it.

and this

Barron v. Baltimore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



While the case is not in Shakespeares words "much ado about nothing" - it certainly is NOT what some here are trying to make it into nor is it any proof that the Bill of Rights does not give us rights - which was the point of the poster who brought it up in the first place.


the fact is, the founders intended the 2A to recognize an existing right and therefore, your claim that it was only about joining a militia is patently wrong
 
the fact is, the founders intended the 2A to recognize an existing right and therefore, your claim that it was only about joining a militia is patently wrong

That would be the mythical right that even you cannot locate and admit that it is nowhere to be found.
 
the fact is, the founders intended the 2A to recognize an existing right

can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
 
can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?

Well lets see. some Democrat scum bag politician says LETS BAN all SEMI AUTOS" and a wise man says-NO WAY that violates the natural right of self defense and of free men to be armed. and if enough people agree with the wise man, the scum bag Democrat gets thrown out of office

as it should be
 
That would be the mythical right that even you cannot locate and admit that it is nowhere to be found.

that's crap and you know it. Its a belief. I believe free citizens should be armed and the scumbag Democrat politicians should not interfere with that. And I will vote against any scumbag who tries to pass federal gun laws. That sounds a bit more than MYTHICAL to me.

is everything you believe in MYTHICAL Haymarket?
 
can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?

By getting an "activist" judge to back them up. ;)
 
And other than the Fifth Amendment? What about the other rights we have from the Bill of Rights? Are you really trying to state that citizens in the states did not get those either because of the Barron/Baltimore ruling?

I wouldn't put it quite like that. It was already clear in the debate over Madison's proposed Bill of Rights that most states did not want certain limitations on Congress' power to apply to them also. For example, they decided not to adopt Madison's proposal to extend free speech protections to the states. But even in the Bill of Rights as finally ratified, some question remained whether all the guarantees in it were specifically limited to the federal government. They were not all phrased like the First Amendment, e.g., which says plainly that "Congress shall make no law . . ." The Court settled the issue in Barron v. Baltimore, making clear that the guarantees in the Bill of Rights did not protect citizens from actions by state governments.

And then it was supplanted by the 14th Amendment.

That is false. If the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 had "supplanted" the principle that the Bill of Rights applied only to the United States, there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to make all those decisions in which it applied first one bit of the Bill of Rights and then another to the states through the much-debated "doctrine of incorporation."

For anyone who's interested, Adamson v. California, from 1947, is a good place to see some of the justices arguing different theories of what kinds of guarantees in the Bill of Rights should or should not be incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and through it, applied to the states.

And from that a poster wants to make the case that this blip proves that our rights do not come from the Bill of Rights written decades and generations before this one case even though people still got their rights during those years?

Yeah - go with that as it makes perfect sense.... not in this world but there might be one out there where it does.

You may imagine that using a snide tone will cover up your ignorance, but I doubt it. I think it only points it up.

Here is evidence that the decision did NOT have the effect some want us to think it did

The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Barron v. Baltimore (1833) | PBS

First, I just made clear that some state constitutions may have provided some of the same guarantees as the Bill of Rights. And yet now--once again-- you try to misstate my position. Second, I don't accept your Jiify-Law "evidence." Using sloppy wording is a way of making false statements. Obviously not all "state courts still interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying to their own governments." If they had, the Supreme Court's massive, century-long project of applying most of the Bill of Rights to the states never would have been necessary.

The Establishment Clause never applied to the states until Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. Before that, any state could have chosen not to include a ban in its constitution on declaring an official state religion, and gone on to declare one by law. If the majority in a state had chosen to do that, it would have done the rest of the people in that state no good whatever to point to the First Amendment and demand its protection. Until McDonald v. Chicago just four years ago, Illinois was not extending the guarantee of the Second Amendment to its citizens--and I'm sure quite a few other states were not, either.

Even today, the Seventh Amendment does not apply to the states. It's up to each state whether it wants to give people the right to a jury trial in civil suits where more than $20 is at stake. The same is true of the Eight Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines--the Supreme Court has never held that that bit of the Bill of Rights is binding on states. And there are quite a few states, including my own, in which a person charged with a felony like murder has no right to be indicted by a grand jury, despite the fact the Fifth Amendment guarantees that right to a person similarly charged in federal court.

While the case is not in Shakespeares words "much ado about nothing" - it certainly is NOT what some here are trying to make it into nor is it any proof that the Bill of Rights does not give us rights - which was the point of the poster who brought it up in the first place.

I'm not concerned with what any other poster may have claimed. I've been responding only to your assertions, and I've shown they are flat untrue. It is as basic a principle as anything in constitutional law that the Bill of Rights is a "charter of negative liberties" and NOT a positive grant of rights by government. Trying to deny such a black-letter principle is a great way for a person to make a fool of himself--sort of the equivalent of sitting down at a chessboard and loudly insisting that the bishops move only along ranks or files, and never diagonally. But then you've made very clear here that your credibility means nothing to you.
 
Last edited:
that's crap and you know it.

It cannot be crap because I have been saying the same thing you just did - its a belief. And a belief inside a persons head gives nobody any so called "right" to exercised, use or anything else for that matter.

So now that we all agree the belief in natural rights is indeed only a belief and it is nowhere to be found outside of the willful self adoption of the believer himself, what good does it do any citizen?
 
I wouldn't put it quite like that.

Excellent. So lets flush this idea that Barron somehow negates the Bill of Rights. And that admission settles that.

If the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 had "supplanted" the principle that the Bill of Rights applied only to the United States, there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to make all those decisions in which it applied first one bit of the Bill of Rights and then another to the states through the much-debated "doctrine of incorporation."

And what provided the platform for the Court to do just that .... the 14th Amendment. So its much the same thing and you are arguing about a distinction without any real difference.

Second, I don't accept your Jiify-Law "evidence."

You have the right to reject anything which contradicts your own personal ideology and belief system. Thank for the admission and there is little point in then arguing it when you reserve the right to reject verifiable evidence which proves my point.

And none of any of this changes the reality that we get our rights from the Bill of Rights. If you disagree, simply show me where we get them from.
 
By getting an "activist" judge to back them up. ;)

But then the previously non existent right comes into existence. Before the judge made it so it still did not exist in reality or in usage.
 
Last edited:
the fact is, the founders intended the 2A to recognize an existing right and therefore, your claim that it was only about joining a militia is patently wrong

I think someone's inner child got a great big owey because of Heller. That mean man Scalia made him feel all icky, and he can't do anything about it. So he jumps up and down and screams and makes up fibs about the Constitution--but no one listens to him.
 
Well lets see. some Democrat scum bag politician says LETS BAN all SEMI AUTOS" and a wise man says-NO WAY that violates the natural right of self defense and of free men to be armed. and if enough people agree with the wise man, the scum bag Democrat gets thrown out of office

as it should be

You did NOT answer my question. In fact - you did the opposite since you are using the example of a right that is in the Bill of Rights and the law of the land. I do not know why you would do that and think you could get away with it - but you did just the same.

So lets try this again: can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
 
I think someone's inner child got a great big owey because of Heller. That mean man Scalia made him feel all icky, and he can't do anything about it. So he jumps up and down and screams and makes up fibs about the Constitution--but no one listens to him.

thank you for revealing you previous attempts at any sort of actual intellectual exchange were just a sham and when push comes to shove you resort to this sort of childishness.
 
So its ignorance of history?

The strange birth of NY

The Criminal Steering of Gun Control | Buckeye Firearms Association


n 1911, Sullivan's constituents, (Irish and Jewish mobsters who put him into office), shared a growing problem with him. Immigrant Italian mafia members were horning in on what had once been their exclusive area of criminal operations. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. Naturally, in order to protect themselves and their property, honest travelers began to arm themselves. Gunfights in what was to become Little Italy became more frequent. This both raised the criminal's risk while conducting armed robbery, and reduced the gang's profit. Sullivan's criminal constituents then "lobbied" Sullivan to introduce a law prohibiting concealed carry of pistols in order to reduce the risk to his criminal constituents while robbing honest people. That Sullivan was successful in passing a law disarming honest citizens so as to aid and abet other criminals is well documented. -


Niagara Falls Reporter OPINION



n 1911, the Irish and Jewish mobsters who put him into office faced a growing problem -- the Italians. Immigrant mafiosi newly arrived from Sicily and Naples were horning in on what had once been their exclusive domain. Gunfights on the Lower East Side and the neighborhood around Mulberry Street that was to become Little Italy grew more and more frequent, and it was getting so that you couldn't even shake down a barber shop or a greengrocer without some guy fresh off the boat taking a shot at you.

Not to worry, Big Tim told the boys. And in 1911, he took care of the problem.

The Sullivan Act was passed into law in New York state in 1911 and remains Big Tim's primary legacy. It effectively banned most people from owning and, especially, carrying handguns. Under the onerous conditions of the corrupted law, a peaceable citizen of sound mind could apply for a pistol permit, but if any of a number of elected or appointed officials objected to its issuance, he or she could be denied the license. The law remains in effect to this day and has been used as the basis for gun laws in many other states and municipalities.

Yeah; you're telling the same story multilpe times. From The New York Post:

The strange birth of NY

This was the heyday of the pre-Prohibition gangs, roving bands of violent toughs who terrorized ethnic neighborhoods and often fought pitched battles with police. In 1903, the Battle of Rivington Street pitted a Jewish gang, the Eastmans, against the Italian Five Pointers. When the cops showed up, the two underworld armies joined forces and blasted away, resulting in three deaths and scores of injuries. The public was clamoring for action against the gangs.

And as we see again: the law was designed around public demand... This is what I've been saying to you over and over again. The proof I showed you from the ATF proper said the very same thing and now your own source says it too! The Niagra Falls story is just an opinion piece based on the same type of paranoia that your posts suffer from.

Your barking into an empty alley dude.
 
Yeah; you're telling the same story multilpe times. From The New York Post:

The strange birth of NY



And as we see again: the law was designed around public demand... This is what I've been saying to you over and over again. The proof I showed you from the ATF proper said the very same thing and now your own source says it too! The Niagra Falls story is just an opinion piece based on the same type of paranoia that your posts suffer from.

Your barking into an empty alley dude.

crooks passed the sullivan law to protect their ethnic based mobs from other ethinc groups

I love you talking about paranoia--I am not the one who is losing bodily function control over others being armed
 
You did NOT answer my question. In fact - you did the opposite since you are using the example of a right that is in the Bill of Rights and the law of the land. I do not know why you would do that and think you could get away with it - but you did just the same.

So lets try this again: can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?

Given your refusal to honestly answer most of the questions put to you, I really don't give a tinker's dam about your questions but its an easy answer.

Your question is a complete fail because you think it only EXISTS in the belief system of other individuals. When you figure out the proper question, I might answer it further
 
I think someone's inner child got a great big owey because of Heller. That mean man Scalia made him feel all icky, and he can't do anything about it. So he jumps up and down and screams and makes up fibs about the Constitution--but no one listens to him.

I don't know what these haters of gun owners would do if the supreme court actually did the right thing and say-NO THE COMMERCE CLAUSE cannot be used to create a federal power of gun regulation. Probably commit mass suicide figuring its better than being tried for the treasonous nonsense they have foisted on this nation for 80 years
 
Back
Top Bottom