• 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 same court which had Felix Frankfurther, Hugo Black, and William Douglas, who are considered great supreme court justices.

mainly by people who liked left leaning rulings even great judges have some real brain farts of bouts of statist stupidity. example. CJ Roberts and obamacare
 
uh that is not relevant. what is relevant is what did the founders intend for the 2A to do

and why is that more relevant that how the people and their government of 2014 see that same question today?
 
and why is that more relevant that how the people and their government of 2014 see that same question today?

This is not about what some people "see today"

this is not what the government says

its about what the 2A really means
 
anyone who wants the constitution to be enforced and respected as written would be concerned.

But even you do not care about it AS WRITTEN. You care about it as you interpret it with the excuse of what some individual founder may have believed on some issue over 200 years ago in an America which really no longer exists for all practical purposes and then expect that people today are suppose to agree with you.
 
This is not about what some people "see today"

this is not what the government says

its about what the 2A really means

What it really means to you no doubt. :roll::doh

And I suspect that everybody who has an opinion on this feels that they see the Amendment for "what it really means". So how is your opinion the only valid one?
 
Last edited:
But even you do not care about it AS WRITTEN. You care about it as you interpret it with the excuse of what some individual founder may have believed on some issue over 200 years ago in an America which really no longer exists for all practical purposes and then expect that people today are suppose to agree with you.

this is not about Me Haymarket

what it is about is what the 2A really means and if that meaning should be enforced by an amendment

the founders clearly agreed that the 2A was designed to prevent any encroachment on a pre-existing right
 
The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

Exercise? What does "exercise their right" even mean?
 
Exercise? What does "exercise their right" even mean?

its turning around the purpose of the bill of rights which is a restriction on the federal government rather than telling people what they can do. You see, all those rights pre-existed the constitution so the constitution gives no rights to people but merely recognizes them
 
It means the right can be utilized or enjoyed.

the Bill of rights is a restriction on what the government can do

not a license for what citizens are allowed to do
 
It means the right can be utilized or enjoyed.

Enjoyed? Utilized?

Can you describe the environment that the government would need to create such that people couldn't exercise/enjoy/utilize their right to keep and bear arms?
 
the Bill of rights is a restriction on what the government can do

not a license for what citizens are allowed to do

And what the government cannot do is create an environment where the right cannot be exercised.
 
Enjoyed? Utilized?

Can you describe the environment that the government would need to create such that people couldn't exercise/enjoy/utilize their right to keep and bear arms?

People would not be allowed to have firearms.
 
And what the government cannot do is create an environment where the right cannot be exercised.

It says, "shall not be infringed". So your whole, "creating an environment" meaning is a sham. It says nothing of "creating an environment". Why can't you get that through your head? The very word "infringe" means to limit, meaning, the government shall not limit the right of the people to keep, and bear arms. Get over it.

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/Submit
verb
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
antonyms: obey, comply with
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More
 
It says, "shall not be infringed". So your whole, "creating an environment" meaning is a sham. It says nothing of "creating an environment".

That is what many laws do - they create an environment for the nation and its people.
 
That is what many laws do - they create an environment for the nation and its people.

Thank you Captain Obvious. But with respect to the 2A the government is restricted from creating laws which restrict a specific right. The right to keep and bear arms. That means they cannot legislate restrictions or limitations of any kind.
 
Thank you Captain Obvious. But with respect to the 2A the government is restricted from creating laws which restrict a specific right. The right to keep and bear arms. That means they cannot legislate restrictions or limitations of any kind.

that is simply not true and never has been true. The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.

Let us look at who agrees with that common sense middle of the road position.



Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.

And that would include people from all sides of the aisle including noted conservative icons such as President Ronald Reagan.
 
that is simply not true and never has been true.

It absolutely is true, as evidenced by the words, "shall not be infringed". Why do you have such a difficult time with such a simple sentence?

What does the word "infringed", mean? Why did the founders use that word specifically?

If it's not true, why even have a Constitution?
 
It absolutely is true, as evidenced by the words, "shall not be infringed". Why do you have such a difficult time with such a simple sentence?

What does the word "infringed", mean? Why did the founders use that word specifically?

If it's not true, why even have a Constitution?

No- It is not true and never has been. Please see the rest of my post above since I was adding when you posted your latest. It should clear things up for you.
 
No- It is not true and never has been. Please see the rest of my post above since I was adding when you posted your latest. It should clear things up for you.

I really don't care about usurpers. The meaning is clear. Get over it. We aren't discussing bad legislative decisions. We are discussing the meaning and intent of the founders.

Now, answer my questions. What does the word "infringed", mean? Why did the founders use that word specifically?

If it's not true, why even have a Constitution?
 
I really don't care about usurpers. The meaning is clear. Get over it. We aren't discussing bad legislative decisions. We are discussing the meaning and intent of the founders.

Now, answer my questions. What does the word "infringed", mean? Why did the founders use that word specifically?

If it's not true, why even have a Constitution?

Usurpers!?!?!?!? By your standard there seem to be a whole lot of them and they stand with me. And for the legislators and presidents and governors the American people put them into those jobs of responsibility and sent them back time and time again.

I have explained what the word INFRINGED meant. Did you miss that?

The first truly comprehensive dictionary of our language as spoken in the USA was issued in1828 by Noah Webster. This will help everyone understand what INFRINGED means during that era.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/infringed

As you may know, the first definition given is the most common and most used.



infringed

INFRING'ED, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses.

So the right had to have been BROKEN to have been INFRINGED. If the right can be exercised - it is by obvious reality NOT BROKEN. The term INFRINGED - as used at the time - was far more final and definitive than any mere incremental step that people today call INFRINGEMENTS. The right had to be BROKEN to be INFRINGED.
 
Last edited:
Usurpers!?!?!?!? By your standard there seem to be a whole lot of them and they stand with me. And for the legislators and presidents and governors the American people put them into those jobs of responsibility and sent them back time and time again.

I have explained what the word INFRINGED meant. Did you miss that?
Yes, I missed it. Unless you copy and pasted the definition, as I did, you're wrong. So please, enlighten me.
 
I really don't care about usurpers. The meaning is clear. Get over it. We aren't discussing bad legislative decisions. We are discussing the meaning and intent of the founders.

Now, answer my questions. What does the word "infringed", mean? Why did the founders use that word specifically?

If it's not true, why even have a Constitution?

That is a very good question yet unlikely to ever be addressed by the SCOTUS. IMHO, "shall not be infringed" means the same thing as "shall not be abridged or denied". A better question is how a specifically mentioned, constitutional "right of the people" is deemed OK (by the SCOTUS) to be treated differently by many of the several states yet SSM (while never mentioned at all) must be fully allowed (nnot infringed?) in all of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom