• 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 .
attention, attention!!

Haymarket states James Madison irrelevant to constitution
.

the father of the Constitution James Madison, ..the man who worked on the Constitution, before and during constitutional convention.

the man who created more works on the constitution then anyone, and the author of the bill of rights...

Compared to what the 55 men wrote and adopted as the law of the land - YES INDEED EB - the personal opinion of any Founder - even the sitting at the right hand of God Himself - is indeed IRRELEVANT.
 
you failure is not my problem, if you would spent more time reading about our founding documents, you would have less trouble.

You pronounce my failure but you then FAIL to document it. You seem to be getting increasingly frustrated and angry.
 
so it is your learned opinion that gun control is a necessary and proper power of the federal government even though the founders clearly saw that as a state issue. would say traffic control and zoning also be a necessary and proper power?

FDR claimed the government needed this power to combat a federally created problem-prohibition gangsters. He couldn't ban gangsters so he pandered by essentially banning machine guns. 20 years later, pimps in office tried to ban bike gangs by severely restricting "switchblade knives" (can anyone argue that was needed or a federal law was proper for that)

however the states had the power to regulate machine guns without invoking bogus claims of constitutional authority. what this means is FDR wanted to pander rather than there was a real necessity for this law

how well did the individual states fare in handling the crime wave perpetrated by the Barrow Gang, which was able to avoid being caught by local authorities by simply crossing state and county borders to escape jurisdiction. the boundary between national issuess and state issues is blurry.
 
Compared to what the 55 men wrote and adopted as the law of the land - YES INDEED EB - the personal opinion of any Founder - even the sitting at the right hand of God Himself - is indeed IRRELEVANT.

IRRELEVANT?

is James Madison IRRELEVANT...to the BILL OF RIGHTS...YES OR NO?
 
IRRELEVANT?

is James Madison IRRELEVANT...to the BILL OF RIGHTS...YES OR NO?

Compared to what the 55 men wrote and was adopted as the law of the land by the various states- YES INDEED EB - the personal opinion of any Founder - even the sitting at the right hand of God Himself - is indeed IRRELEVANT.
 
Compared to what the 55 men wrote and was adopted as the law of the land by the various states- YES INDEED EB - the personal opinion of any Founder - even the sitting at the right hand of God Himself - is indeed IRRELEVANT.


SO THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION, ........and the author of the bill of rights...is IRRELEVANT to his own work

so i guess in your mind Margaret Munnerlyn Mitchell is IRRELEVANT, to the book....."gone with the wind"

and you wonder why you fail?
 
how well did the individual states fare in handling the crime wave perpetrated by the Barrow Gang, which was able to avoid being caught by local authorities by simply crossing state and county borders to escape jurisdiction. the boundary between national issuess and state issues is blurry.

uh banning guns is not relevant to this. try again.
 
SO THE FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION, ........and the author of the bill of rights...is IRRELEVANT to his own work

so i guess in your mind Margaret Munnerlyn Mitchell is IRRELEVANT, to the book....."gone with the wind"

and you wonder why you fail?

maddison may have wrote it, but is he the final authority on how the document is supposed to be interprated?

or is that the responsibility of judges on the supreme court?
 
maddison may have wrote it, but is he the final authority on how the document is supposed to be interprated?

or is that the responsibility of judges on the supreme court?

lets cut through all the mental masturbation, high school debate hypotheticals etc

what do you BELIEVE the founders intended as to federal gun control and back that up with the plain language of their documents (not limited to the USC and the Bill of Rights)
 
maddison may have wrote it, but is he the final authority on how the document is supposed to be interprated?

or is that the responsibility of judges on the supreme court?

Actually he is not the final authority and has no special authority because he had a hand in its creation. That final authority is the US Supreme Court.
 
Actually he is not the final authority and has no special authority because he had a hand in its creation. That final authority is the US Supreme Court.

in terms of legally yes though congress can override the Supreme Court decisions in certain cases
 
lets cut through all the mental masturbation, high school debate hypotheticals etc

what do you BELIEVE the founders intended as to federal gun control and back that up with the plain language of their documents (not limited to the USC and the Bill of Rights)


:2razz::lol:..yeah baby...
 
but definitely not the ghost of James Madison.

however, Madison's writings are far more useful in deciding what the founders intended than whatpolitical whores who wear robes said 140 years after the fact
 
lets cut through all the mental masturbation, high school debate hypotheticals etc

what do you BELIEVE the founders intended as to federal gun control and back that up with the plain language of their documents (not limited to the USC and the Bill of Rights)

YES.

the second amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. IT does not say that congress is forbidden to make Any laws that relate to firearms. the 2nd amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but the constitution does not contain any language that makes fire arms completely immune from legislative acts.
 
however, Madison's writings are far more useful in deciding what the founders intended than whatpolitical whores who wear robes said 140 years after the fact

How so? Where is it written that the personal opinion of somebody who lived in an America which for all practical purposes no longer exists suppose to carry all that weight today?
 
YES.

the second amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. IT does not say that congress is forbidden to make Any laws that relate to firearms. the 2nd amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but the constitution does not contain any language that makes fire arms completely immune from legislative acts.

sure it does..because the 2nd is a restriction on the federal government.....show where in the general powers of congress article 1 section8 , where it has powers that deal into the personal life's of the people.
 
Maddison was the architect who created the concept of the constitution.

John Marshall was one of the engineers and builders that brought that concept into reality.

Madison worked on the framework of the Constitution months before the convention.

Marshall didn't write the bill of rights...Madison ..did.
 
YES.

the second amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. IT does not say that congress is forbidden to make Any laws that relate to firearms. the 2nd amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but the constitution does not contain any language that makes fire arms completely immune from legislative acts.

that is stupid on two counts

shall not be infringed means no such laws

and since congress was not delegated the power to make those laws

you fail again

you seem to labor under the statist delusion that if congress is not absolutely totally and completely forbidden from doing something it can do that

can congress degree how long a skirt your would be girl friend can wear? there is no constitutional prohibition on such a law in the bill of rights


or what color underwear you must wear while in federal court?
 
Back
Top Bottom