• 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 .
countryboy said:
Please demonstrate precisely where I have done this.
Click to expand...

your recent post 899

So you go on and on about how the 2A doesn't protect the rights of individuals, then you admit you really have no idea what you are talking about. I appreciate your candor. I'm glad we cleared that up.
Click to expand...

it was you trying (and failing) to be a smartass. I told you in a previous post that I am not a professional linguist and I do not have the training in that field to discuss their craft or their findings with any degree of expertise.


my post 889
To be brutally honest - I do not know enough about the subject of linguistics to offer a constructive and educated opinion that could effectively counter any of theirs.
Click to expand...

Got it? Clear now?

So what do you do? You see an enemy in your sights and decide to take what I said about linguists to pervert it and twist it and apply it dishonestly to my statements about the Second Amendment - something which I have studied in detail and do have training and expertise in.

Are we clear now as to what you did even though you darn well know what you did when you did it and did so intentionally hoping to score some cheap points?
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm sorry, I thought the context was clear. Now, try addressing the context I set up in my response.
Click to expand...

it was clear.......you said experts....these then are your experts.

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?
 
haymarket said:
no more than any other suggestion for inclusion in the Constitution which failed to get ratified and included in it.
Click to expand...

you seem to not want to answer property....

the clause of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive to the federal government ....that is fact
 
ernst barkmann said:
you seem to not want to answer property....

the clause of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive to the federal government ....that is fact
Click to expand...

I do not see how you can mistake my answer for anything but 100% direct. the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the US Constitution and has no more weight than any other idea ever suggested for inclusion in the Constitution but never included as part of it - which is to say no legal weight of any kind.
 
haymarket said:
I do not see how you can mistake my answer for anything but 100% direct. the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the US Constitution and has no more weight than any other idea ever suggested for inclusion in the Constitution but never included as part of it - which is to say no legal weight of any kind.
Click to expand...

again you side step.....the part in red

the preamble to the constitution and the bill of rights, have " NO WEIGHT", both are introduction statements...the constitution preamble in the mission statement or goal of the constitution.

the preamble to the bill of rights, introduces the clauses of the bill of rights as declaratory and restrictive on the federal government.......that is FACT!

 
ernst barkmann said:
again you side step.....the part in red

the preamble to the constitution and the bill of rights, have " NO WEIGHT", both are introduction statements...the constitution preamble in the mission statement or goal of the constitution.

the preamble to the bill of rights, introduces the clauses of the bill of rights as declaratory and restrictive on the federal government.......that is FACT!
Click to expand...

ANYTHING in the preamble to the Bill of Rights has NO WEIGHT of law and is not part of the Constitution. As such it is irrelevant to any issues regarding the Constitution.
 
haymarket said:
ANYTHING in the preamble to the Bill of Rights has NO WEIGHT of law and is not part of the Constitution. As such it is irrelevant to any issues regarding the Constitution.
Click to expand...

again you fail......the bill of rights preamble is stating that the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government....this is fact!
 
ernst barkmann said:
again you fail......the bill of rights preamble is stating that the clauses of the bill of rights are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government....this is fact!
Click to expand...

how can I fail when the preamble to the bill of rights is not part of the Constitution and has no legal weight?
 
haymarket said:
I do not see how you can mistake my answer for anything but 100% direct. the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the US Constitution and has no more weight than any other idea ever suggested for inclusion in the Constitution but never included as part of it - which is to say no legal weight of any kind.
Click to expand...

Out of one side of your mouth, you claim the preamble of the Constitution carries no legal weight, while out of the other side of your mouth, you cite "linguistics experts" as having legal weight in the interpretation of the Constitution. Make up your mind, would you? How can an actual part of the document carry less weight, "legally", than a modern "scholar's" interpretation of said document?
 
haymarket said:
how can I fail when the preamble to the bill of rights is not part of the Constitution and has no legal weight?
Click to expand...

the preamble again to the bill of rights is stating that the clauses of the bill of rights [which were ratified ] and law, are declaratory and restrictive clauses on the federal government..this is fact!

the Constitution preamble has no legal weight.
 
countryboy said:
Out of one side of your mouth, you claim the preamble of the Constitution carries no legal weight, while out of the other side of your mouth, you cite "linguistics experts" as having legal weight in the interpretation of the Constitution. Make up your mind, would you? How can an actual part of the document carry less weight, "legally", than a modern "scholar's" interpretation of said document?
Click to expand...

The opinion of professional linguists has only the weight which the Justices decide to give it. No more and no less.

The preamble to the bill of rights was not ratified by the number of states necessary and is not a part of the Constitution and has no legal weight.

You do realize that these are two different and separate things...... don't you?
 
ernst barkmann said:
the preamble again to the bill of rights is stating that the clauses of the bill of rights [which were ratified ] and law, are declaratory and restrictive clauses on the federal government..this is fact!

the Constitution preamble has no legal weight.
Click to expand...

I could not care less what it states. it is not a part of the Constitution.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the amendments to the Constitution are......and they are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government...this is fact!
Click to expand...

and could you tell us why you feel it is necessary and important to label the amendments this way and what it proves to you?
 
haymarket said:
and could you tell us why you feel it is necessary and important to label the amendments this way and what it proves to you?
Click to expand...

simple.... it means the federal government is powerless in these areas.

it means the amendments to not grant any powers to the federal government

so it means the federal government cannot make laws about militias of the states, or the rights of the people of each state to keep and bear arms.
 
ernst barkmann said:
simple.... it means the federal government is powerless in these areas.

it means the amendments to not grant any powers to the federal government

so it means the federal government cannot make laws about militias of the states, or the rights of the people of each state to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Watching you jump from one to the others is like watching somebody connect the dots on different pages....

in different coloring books altogether.
 
haymarket said:
ANYTHING in the preamble to the Bill of Rights has NO WEIGHT of law and is not part of the Constitution. As such it is irrelevant to any issues regarding the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Wait....

How is something that puts the document it preambles into context NOT important?

What fool decided that part had no weight of law?
 
The Mark said:
Wait....

How is something that puts the document it preambles into context NOT important?

What fool decided that part had no weight of law?
Click to expand...

that would be the people who either DID NOT submit it to the states for ratification or the people in the states who failed to ratify it making it part of the Constitution.
 
haymarket said:
that would be the people who either DID NOT submit it to the states for ratification or the people in the states who failed to ratify it making it part of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Those idiots.
 
The Mark said:
Those idiots.
Click to expand...

preambles are introductions to documents

the Constitution preamble has no legal power.

the preamble to the bill of rights states the clauses 1-10 of the bill of rights ARE declaratory and restrictive on the federal government.

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.


haymarket wishes to act because the preamble was not ratified, this somehow makes the 1 -10 amendments not declaratory of restrictive....but that's false coming from him, .........they are
 
ernst barkmann said:
this is your reply?

so you have nothing as usual......
Click to expand...

When I m replying to nothing in the first place - its difficult to turn it into something without any ingredients. And that is what your rants about the preamble to the bills of rights are ---- I think Shakespeare said it best.... MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

preambles are introductions to documents

the Constitution preamble has no legal power.

the preamble to the bill of rights states the clauses 1-10 of the bill of rights ARE declaratory and restrictive on the federal government.
Click to expand...

The Preamble to the Constitution is part of the Constitution.
The preamble to the Bill of Rights is NOT part of the Constitution.

What is there about these realities that seem to confound and befuddle you so much?

Oh wait!!!! :doh I get it now!!!! :doh You don't like the contents of the Constitution preamble but you do like the contents of the bill of rights preamble.

Now it all makes sense. :roll:
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
When I m replying to nothing in the first place - its difficult to turn it into something without any ingredients. And that is what your rants about the preamble to the bills of rights are ---- I think Shakespeare said it best.... MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
Click to expand...

sorry, but here you fail again....i stated clearly....very clearly, that the preamble to the bill of rights is an introduction to the 10 amendments.

the preamble states those 10 amendment are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government, .....and they are, this is fact!
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry, but here you fail again....i stated clearly....very clearly, that the preamble to the bill of rights is an introduction to the 10 amendments.

the preamble states those 10 amendment are declaratory and restrictive on the federal government, .....and they are, this is fact!
Click to expand...

The toilet paper I used this morning has more utilitarian use than your precious preamble to the bill of rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom