• 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 .
Only if you assume they never change, never react to new information, never grow. That's the only way you can fix them to such a position. But, our system was set up so that the courts ruled on what was and what wasn't constitutional. That's the system.

Which seems to make a bit more sense than pretending it is still 1787 and we are wearing those awful three cornered hats and have a population of 4 million people in an agricultural economy in a backwater nation pretty much isolated from the rest of the world along a narrow ocean coastline.
 
no that's what the bill of rights says"


The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction 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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

the preamble to the bill of rights is not part of the US Constitution.
 
no that's what the bill of rights says"


The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction 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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Again, the courts rule on this. I know I'm a novice, as are you, but the system allows the court to rule on what is and what isn't constitutional. Have cursory knowledge of the Constitution, or a cursory reading of it, doesn't make either of us expert. But we have 200 years of precedence to look at as well.
 
the preamble to the bill of rights is not part of the US Constitution.

the preamble an introduction tot he clauses of the bill of rights, stating what kinds of clause they are....and they are declaratory and restriction ont he federal government..

they bestow no power to the federal government at all.
 
Which seems to make a bit more sense than pretending it is still 1787 and we are wearing those awful three cornered hats and have a population of 4 million people in an agricultural economy in a backwater nation pretty much isolated from the rest of the world along a narrow ocean coastline.

I liked those hats!! And the muskets and buck skins was good stuff. ;)
 
Again, the courts rule on this. I know I'm a novice, as are you, but the system allows the court to rule on what is and what isn't constitutional. Have cursory knowledge of the Constitution, or a cursory reading of it, doesn't make either of us expert. But we have 200 years of precedence to look at as well.

so you really think the USSC can impose restrictions from the bill of rights which apply to only government......the federal government the power to restrict the people
 
Again, the courts rule on this. I know I'm a novice, as are you, but the system allows the court to rule on what is and what isn't constitutional. Have cursory knowledge of the Constitution, or a cursory reading of it, doesn't make either of us expert. But we have 200 years of precedence to look at as well.

the bill of rights was not written for the states or the people....there is no 200 years....
 
so you really think the USSC can impose restrictions from the bill of rights which apply to only government......the federal government the power to restrict the people

NO, nor do I think they have. I think they know more about than you and I and have acted under the constitution to impose restrictions.
 
NO, nor do I think they have. I think they know more about than you and I and have acted under the constitution to impose restrictions.

the founders did not impose any restrictions on the people.

why would the people institute a government to restrict them?

the federal government was given no authority into the life's liberty and property of the people.....zero.
 
the founders did not impose any restrictions on the people.

why would the people institute a government to restrict them?

the federal government was given no authority into the life's liberty and property of the people.....zero.

Again, that is what the courts are for. And there is more to it than the bill of rights. As I said, we're both novice and as such a little bit of knowledge can led to wrong interpretations. The court, however, is made up of experts, people who know. And we have to opportunity to take cases to court for arbitration. If we make a good enough argument, and show a breech of the constitution, they act. But they are the arbitrators.
 
the bill of rights did not apply to states...... only the federal government..its been only since after the civil war.

Again, this has nothing to do with it. Read what I wrote above.
 
Again, that is what the courts are for. And there is more to it than the bill of rights. As I said, we're both novice and as such a little bit of knowledge can led to wrong interpretations. The court, however, is made up of experts, people who know. And we have to opportunity to take cases to court for arbitration. If we make a good enough argument, and show a breech of the constitution, they act. But they are the arbitrators.

experts?

so because a man grew wheat to feed to his cattle...the court, interprets that to mean the government can regulate commence inside states?

because wild birds fly between bodies of water in different states, this allows government to make environmental laws?


no where is it written in the constitution for the federal government to have authority in the life's liberty and property of the people....no where is that written.

the court is corrupt, as is the other branches.
 
the preamble an introduction tot he clauses of the bill of rights, stating what kinds of clause they are....and they are declaratory and restriction ont he federal government..

they bestow no power to the federal government at all.

The preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution.
 
Only if you assume they never change, never react to new information, never grow. That's the only way you can fix them to such a position. But, our system was set up so that the courts ruled on what was and what wasn't constitutional. That's the system.
so are you arguing what FDR did was proper or are you arguing he should have sought a constitutional amendment
 
experts?

so because a man grew wheat to feed to his cattle...the court, interprets that to mean the government can regulate commence inside states?

because wild birds fly between bodies of water in different states, this allows government to make environmental laws?


no where is it written in the constitution for the federal government to have authority in the life's liberty and property of the people....no where is that written.

the court is corrupt, as is the other branches.

the Wickard majority were nothing more than FDR Fluffers. To ascribe some sort of wisdom to them is a gross injustice. They all should have been impeached-or worse
 
I am from Scotland and doing a modern studies assignment at school on the second amendment of the US constitution and would like to gather views from US citizens.
Could you tell me if you think the second amendment needs to be changed or not and give reasons why.
Many thanks
Yes it should be amended to: "Congress shall make no laws that prohibits or interferes with the ability of the people of these united states from the possession, sale, transfer, or carrying of weapons of any kind. Arms control is an exclusive power of each of the states in this union, and the government of the united states has no authority whatsoever in this area."
 
So the castle in the sky that you have erected, in complete and irreconcilable opposition to foundational principle is what you are going to run with?

Sorry - I have no idea what that means.

Well, isn't that convenient? It just means that your position is maintained while you close your eyes to the constitutional principles that foreclose it . . . Specifically the foundational principles of conferred powers and retained rights.


Please explain how the fragment "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," can be read to demand any action or circumstance be initiated or maintained.

. . . . . . . . . .

Of course you ignore the question that is impossible for you to answer.


Please cite and quote any opinion / statement by SCOTUS that holds that the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment has any legal weight or offers any guidance on anything.

What declaratory clause? Its one sentence for heavens sake. Is this part of the Scalia PREFATORY/OPERANT scam that we saw him employ so horrible and inaccurately in Heller?

"Your" side is always reminding everyone that the 2nd Amendment is the only one with two clauses and Congress provided the precise terminology to employ when discussing the 2nd Amendment's two clauses -- "declaratory and restrictive clauses". Those are the descriptors I limit my characterizations to. I do not particularly like the legally ambiguous "prefatory" and "operative" terms.

To your second question, do you really believe that Scalia coined the prefatory / operative clause description?
DC appealed the DC Circuit's opinion in Parker v. District of Columbia 478 F. 3d 370, (2007) . . . SCOTUS in Heller affirmed Parker and affirmed the terminology, descriptions and concepts set-out in Parker v DC:


.
"The provision's second comma divides the Amendment into two clauses; the first is prefatory, and the second operative. Appellants' argument is focused on their reading of the Second Amendment's operative clause. According to appellants, the Amendment's language flat out guarantees an individual right "to keep and bear Arms." Appellants concede that the prefatory clause expresses a civic purpose, but argue that this purpose, while it may inform the meaning of an ambiguous term like "Arms," does not qualify the right guaranteed by the operative portion of the Amendment."



So really, you can just stop with that BS now . . .

Please explain why you defend all manner of gun control placed on private citizens who have no militia enrollment status, by citing Congressional powers to regulate the militia but
a), SCOTUS has said that those powers only flow from Art. I, §8 and
b), not one gun control law that operates on private citizens and their personal arms is written under militia powers / authority . . .

Your blatantly false premise renders all that comes after it irrelevant. I DO NOT defend all manner of gun control. In fact, I am on record as saying the DC gun ban went to far and set an environment where the right could not be exercised.

That you defend any gun control law by citing the 2nd Amendment's declaratory, "militia" clause is the death-knell for your argument. It really doesn't matter if you can claim that you believe -some- laws to be unconstitutional, that you feel -any- are constitutional, by way of Congress' power to regulate the militia, is irreconcilably anti-constitutional and render any ancillary opinion invalid.


.
 
The opinion Scalia cited in Heller cited came to the opposite conclusion. Here it is for you both from Scalia and his source

first from Scalia 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.

Well, at best that demonstrates your lack of reading comprehension.

What is found on page 394, in Tiffany's exposition of the 2nd (Section 585), is, what Scalia quoted as a paraphrase of the 2nd Amendment (Tiffany has the two clauses reversed but the same words, in the brief, it is exactly as quoted)

.
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).

.
Is that citation really that confusing to you? From your hyperbolic reaction to Scalia's citation one must decide whether you are an imbecile or duplicitous.

I don't think you are an imbecile so it must be that you think we are . . . and you can get away with such deceit.


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.


So yeah, I'm gonna do with you simply being duplicitous liar. . .

The Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae (271KB pdf) was submitted "IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS" which was the District of Columbia and was NOT, "a brief submitted to the Court for Heller".

So while I agree with you that the brief, "contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing" you have ever read, I find that admission curious coming from you since the brief is arguing for your "militia" based right position, not the individual right position.



I think you need to reassess your beliefs of how smart you are and how dumb we are.



.
 
Last edited:
the preamble to the bill of rights is not part of the US Constitution.

But the Court has unwaveringly endorsed the principles affirmed in that paragraph many times. Rights are claimed to be exceptions to the powers granted and those specific pronouncements in the Bill of Rights stand as a barrier to inhibit the invention of powers and thus, the mal-administration of government.

The Court repeatedly affirms the pre-existence of rights, that government is not the source of our rights, that our rights in no manner depend on the Constitution (or any entity or structure created by the Constitution) for their existence thus the Bill of Rights only redundantly forbids government to exercise powers it was never granted, to act against our rights.

The Court also states that the processes and operation of government can not be employed to violate those interests that are held outside of its legitimate powers (e.g., submitting them to a vote).

Some examples (look at the dates):



.
"The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . ." VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)


"The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)


"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." -- BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)


"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).


The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)


"[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty,. . ." -- DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)


"t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .” DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, 478 F. 3d 370, (2008)





What can you possibly say to argue that your conditioned, qualified, "militia right" perversion has any support in the Constitution or the Supreme Court's determinations enforcing the Constitution and its foundational principles?
 
"Your" side is always reminding everyone that the 2nd Amendment is the only one with two clauses and Congress provided the precise terminology to employ when discussing the 2nd Amendment's two clauses -- "declaratory and restrictive clauses". Those are the descriptors I limit my characterizations to. I do not particularly like the legally ambiguous "prefatory" and "operative" terms.

.

My side? I gues that would include Chief Justice John Jay who discussed the Amendment in 1791 in an opinion in Jones v. Walker saying

"A preamble cannot annul enacting clauses; but when it envinces the intention of the legislature and the design of t he act, it enables us, in cases of two constructions, to adopt the one most consonant to their intention and design."

In fact, linguists have called the first clause an "ablative absolute" and it provides "the conditions under which the rest of the sentence is valid." That comes from "The Second Amendment: Our Latinate Constitution from the University of Texas Linguisics Research Center, December 2012.

Lets look at what Scalia says about that from 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.

But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites :


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.

Interesting that the very brief cited by Scalia comes to the opposite conclusion as Heller did. Makes one wonder why Scalia referenced it all.

That you defend any gun control law by citing the 2nd Amendment's declaratory, "militia" clause is the death-knell for your argument. It really doesn't matter if you can claim that you believe -some- laws to be unconstitutional, that you feel -any- are constitutional, by way of Congress' power to regulate the militia, is irreconcilably anti-constitutional and render any ancillary opinion invalid.

How so? Congress established the right as part of military service in the militia and the Congress has rights over the militia. Whats the problem?

To your second question, do you really believe that Scalia coined the prefatory / operative clause description?
DC appealed the DC Circuit's opinion in Parker v. District of Columbia 478 F. 3d 370, (2007) . . . SCOTUS in Heller affirmed Parker and affirmed the terminology, descriptions and concepts set-out in Parker v DC:

That year was 2007. Where were those terms... or concepts ... or terminology ... or descriptions before that time? the fact is that I am correct when I state that Heller is the end result of a right wing crusade which began over 25 years before. Parker fists quite nicely into that effort. It does not disprove my point - it underlines and supports it.

Well, isn't that convenient?


So really, you can just stop with that BS now . .

So yeah, I'm gonna do with you simply being duplicitous liar. .



Why the hostility? Did you take it personally or a direct attack by me when I said it was right wing politics which produced the Heller decision? You certainly seem to.
 
Last edited:
But the Court has unwaveringly endorsed the principles affirmed in that paragraph many times.

My statement was that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the US Constitution. Nothing you said in your post contradicts that or shows it to be not true.

Is this the part where I now get to make smartass comments about your reading comprehension or your intelligence? :roll:

The Court repeatedly affirms the pre-existence of rights, that government is not the source of our rights, that our rights in no manner depend on the Constitution (or any entity or structure created by the Constitution) for their existence thus the Bill of Rights only redundantly forbids government to exercise powers it was never granted, to act against our rights.

So where do we find those pre-existing rights outside of somebody's belief system? Do you have more quotes from the Court identifying just where those pre-existingrights actually could be found?

Rights are very simple to understand. People demand that they want a certain behavior protected by the government so they exert enough power or influence to get government to protect that behavior as a right. There is nothing complicated or mystical about that. Rights do not come from gods or giant beings floating in space dispensing them like Halloween candy to costumed trick or treaters in late October.

So there are people who believe in things because they want to believe in them. And Courts have even quoted them and invented statements of belief on their own to boot. So what? that does not prove the existence of these rights outside of a belief system held by fellow believers because they have made a choice to believe.

Religion exists on such a self imposed belief system. People believe in the idea of natural rights the same way - they take it on faith and believe in it because they want to believe it. And for you to provide those statements of belief about where some people willfully want to believe rights come from does not make that fact nor reality that there are natural rights. It simply says that some people believe that.

And 500 more quotes from believers in natural rights does not prove their existence any more than the statements from ten million people prove the existence of God or gods or any other supernatural entity that cannot be proven to exist.
 
Last edited:
Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae[/URL][/B] (271KB pdf) was submitted "IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS" which was the District of Columbia and was NOT, "a brief submitted to the Court for Heller".
.

How does that change the fact that Scalia listed it as a source for himself in his opinion?
 
Back
Top Bottom