• 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 .
I'm not skipping over anything, I'm looking for what applies.

Obviously the first two words do not apply (unless you're exaggerating things for political reasons) to gun restrictions such as requiring licenses, mag size limits, etc..

And why is that?


None of that actually means the right to keep and bear is broken or violated (although perhaps the last MIGHT apply if you stretched things a bit).

The first two are the most common usage. They apply perfectly and you have given us no reason not connected to political ideology or belief or simply outright denial why they do not apply.



However, we then reach the 3rd meaning listed, "transgressed", and that word quite definitely applies to the situation.

Only if one insists on removing the first two first more common usage definitions, ignoring them for political reasons and focusing only on the third to produce a result that runs contrary to the common usage of the day.

Depending on how you view things, of course, you might say that anything less than absolutely unfettered access to any and all "arms" counts as "infringed".

That is an ideological and political position not based on the definition provided giving the most common usage of the day.
 
People would not be allowed to have firearms.

Hm, so the only possible way congress could violate the second amendment would be to create an environment in which having firearms is not allowed (i.e. a total ban on firearms)? Am I understanding you correctly?
 
Hm, so the only possible way congress could violate the second amendment would be to create an environment in which having firearms is not allowed (i.e. a total ban on firearms)? Am I understanding you correctly?

The extent to which the Court would declare the right would be INFRINGED would have to be made by the Courts after accepting legal challenges. The DC case was one such example. Effectively, the DC law prohibited the practical use of the most popular firearm in normal use by citizens all over the nation - the handgun. That went too far and caused the right to be infringed since it created an environment where large numbers of normal Americans in DC could not use the most common weapon which would normally be available to them.

My personal opinion is that there is some middle ground between NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION and COMPLETE BAN OF ALL FIREARMS. Obviously a complete ban on all firearms would cause the right to be INFRINGED. But something short of that like in the DC handgun law also had that same effect.
 
Last edited:
Hm, so the only possible way congress could violate the second amendment would be to create an environment in which having firearms is not allowed (i.e. a total ban on firearms)? Am I understanding you correctly?

That is what he has said in the past. He also has said that if you own one firearm and thus can enjoy your rights under the 2A it is hard to conceive of the government doing anything that would infringe that right. SO the answer to your question is YES
 
The extent to which the Court would declare the right would be INFRINGED would have to be made by the Courts after accepting legal challenges. The DC case was one such example. Effectively, the DC law prohibited the practical use of the most popular firearm in normal use by citizens all over the nation - the handgun. That went too far and caused the right to be infringed since it created an environment where large numbers of normal Americans in DC could not use the most common weapon which would normally be available to them.

My personal opinion is that there is some middle ground between NO GOVERNMENT REGULATION and COMPLETE BAN OF ALL FIREARMS. Obviously a complete ban on all firearms would cause the right to be INFRINGED. But something short of that like in the DC handgun law also had that same effect.

but this claim contradicts your position that there is no individual right and that the 2A only involves those in the militia.
 
There really is no intellectually sound middle position. EITHER THE 2A prohibits federal action or it does not. And more importantly, either the federal government was granted a specific and clear power or it was not. The obvious answer to the latter is NO and the fact that FDR and his toads violated the Tenth Amendment and mutated the commerce clause is why we have all these silly and dishonest attempts to limit the restrictions recognized by the 2A. If the FDR schmucks had not have grabbed improper power for the Federal government, there would be no reason for the gun haters to be engaging in such silly parsing the 2A's language
 
but this claim contradicts your position that there is no individual right and that the 2A only involves those in the militia.

Exactly. One minute, as here, he's the soul of moderation, recognizing that individual Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, and protesting that he only wants reasonable restrictions on that right. But the next minute, he is railing that Scalia willfully misinterpreted the Second Amendment, that it obviously meant the right to pertain only to militias, and that nothing ever gave individuals any right to keep and bear arms.

Of course I would never call that kind of stratagem intellectual dishonesty. But I think some people might.
 
Exactly. One minute, as here, he's the soul of moderation, recognizing that individual Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, and protesting that he only wants reasonable restrictions on that right. But the next minute, he is railing that Scalia willfully misinterpreted the Second Amendment, that it obviously meant the right to pertain only to militias, and that nothing ever gave individuals any right to keep and bear arms.

Of course I would never call that kind of stratagem intellectual dishonesty. But I think some people might.

Oh I think you're right
 
No. It is you who have made those claims based on what you call these fundamental principles and wrongly include a belief which cannot be proven as one of them.

The problem is your own creation and I will not be placed into that ill fighting straight jacket.

I believe in the American system and the Constitution out of simple and basic pragmatics - it is simply the best system which has the people as the center of power and government and I think that works out best for the nation and its people. I do not have to believe in gods in the sky dispensing rights like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers to support America, its people and our form of government.


Just to come at your position from a different angle, I would like for you to tell us your sentiments on the authenticity / enforceability of many state constitutions.

You dismiss the thought that the concept of inherent, pre-existing rights can be constitutionally recognized and enforced but plainly by their construction, state constitutions demand this concept to be recognized and enforced.

Like many others, my state, Pennsylvania, calls out the rights that the people possess in Article I, and declares them inviolate before a single power is conferred and before any branch of the government is created or established and before any governmental acts and duties are authorized, structured and assigned.

Are these state constitutions invalid because they are based on the concepts of inherent, pre-existing, retained rights that are excepted out of all subsequent grants of power?

Just in case you want to see what I'm talking about -- PA State Constitution -- Art. I, § 21 is how the right to arms is expressed and secured . . .
 
but this claim contradicts your position that there is no individual right and that the 2A only involves those in the militia.

lets review what you have been taught .... what did I say about the Second Amendment and it evolving into an individual right in our discussion on Heller?
 
Last edited:
Just to come at your position from a different angle, I would like for you to tell us your sentiments on the authenticity / enforceability of many state constitutions.

You dismiss the thought that the concept of inherent, pre-existing rights can be constitutionally recognized and enforced but plainly by their construction, state constitutions demand this concept to be recognized and enforced.

Like many others, my state, Pennsylvania, calls out the rights that the people possess in Article I, and declares them inviolate before a single power is conferred and before any branch of the government is created or established and before any governmental acts and duties are authorized, structured and assigned.

Are these state constitutions invalid because they are based on the concepts of inherent, pre-existing, retained rights that are excepted out of all subsequent grants of power?

Just in case you want to see what I'm talking about -- PA State Constitution -- Art. I, § 21 is how the right to arms is expressed and secured . . .

Is this the language you want me to look at?

[h=3]Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.[/h]The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
 
That is what he has said in the past. He also has said that if you own one firearm and thus can enjoy your rights under the 2A it is hard to conceive of the government doing anything that would infringe that right. SO the answer to your question is YES

He asked me a question and I answered it very early this morning Turtle. I am an adult and can speak for myself - even when the subject is about guns.
 
Is this the language you want me to look at?

[h=3]Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.[/h]The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Not specifically, just as a component of the whole of Article I.

Again, Article I calls out rights that the people possessed before the government is created and that they shall fully retain after the government (being established by later articles in the constitution) becomes active.

Only after these rights are declared and held out are powers granted which is an impossible flight of fancy if your premise is correct, that the concept of inherent, pre-existing rights must be discarded as mystical fantasy and not to be considered as having any influence on the actions of government.

I'm just asking you whether you feel that state constitutions that follow this structure and that are premised on these principles are void.

If yes then I guess no further explanation is necessary; if no, I would love to hear the rationalization for your equivocation.
 
lets review what you have been taught .... what did I say about the Second Amendment and it evolving into an individual right in our discussion on Heller?

please tell me and the rest of the class what exactly you claim to have taught us? debate evasion tactics-101?

changing standards 202?

Your own words-THE Exact WORDS of the 2A say nothing about infringements (assuming that one buys into the utter garbage that "shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with preventing infringements) but when we use your EXACT LANGUAGE STANDARD that you apply when you think it helps you narrow and limit the restrictions placed on your beloved Government of the people etc, on the language of Sec. 8 we cannot find any authority whatsoever for federal gun regulations

So what exactly are you teaching us? to change standards when its convenient

or more likely-do as I say and not as I do
 
Not specifically, just as a component of the whole of Article I.

Again, Article I calls out rights that the people possessed before the government is created and that they shall fully retain after the government (being established by later articles in the constitution) becomes active.

Only after these rights are declared and held out are powers granted which is an impossible flight of fancy if your premise is correct, that the concept of inherent, pre-existing rights must be discarded as mystical fantasy and not to be considered as having any influence on the actions of government.

I'm just asking you whether you feel that state constitutions that follow this structure and that are premised on these principles are void.

If yes then I guess no further explanation is necessary; if no, I would love to hear the rationalization for your equivocation.

I am not sure I totally follow you but I will give you an answer - state constitutions can profess belief in anything they want to profess belief in. However, that statement of belief does not confer any rights with it. It is the creation of the right through the people and the government of the people and their subsequent establishment of that right that the right is actual and real and can be exercised.

Why would it be necessary to void a mere statement of faith which by itself does nothing?
 
please tell me and the rest of the class what exactly you claim to have taught us? debate evasion tactics-101?

changing standards 202?

Your own words-THE Exact WORDS of the 2A say nothing about infringements (assuming that one buys into the utter garbage that "shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with preventing infringements) but when we use your EXACT LANGUAGE STANDARD that you apply when you think it helps you narrow and limit the restrictions placed on your beloved Government of the people etc, on the language of Sec. 8 we cannot find any authority whatsoever for federal gun regulations

So what exactly are you teaching us? to change standards when its convenient

or more likely-do as I say and not as I do

Is there some fundamental obstacle which prevents you from presenting my statements as I made them rather than you attempting to tell me what I was suppose to have said?

As to what was already discussed - you and I exchanged views on this just last week. I told you that Scalia in Heller could have easily admitted the obvious connection between militia service and bearing arms and acknowledged the parts of Article I which give Congress authority to pass laws for it. Scalia then could have made a case that over the last two centuries many things in the Amendment have evolved and changed as the nation has changed. So we are now to the point where the right is really no longer a militia connected right but is now an individual right. But what has also evolved is the government end of it and he simply could have also said that Congress may still pass reasonable regulations over firearms since Congress intended the right to be regulated from the start.

The basic error of Scalia was in serving a political and ideological master - the right and their 25 year crusade to get this done - while ignoring the other end of the Amendment.

The right party won the case but the wrong reasoning was used and a great opportunity to settle many of these perpetual arguments was blown.

Do you remember that conversation Turtle?
 
Last edited:
Is there some fundamental obstacle which prevents you from presenting my statements as I made them rather than you attempting to tell me what I was suppose to have said?

As to what was already discussed - you and I exchanged views on this just last week. I told you that Scalia in Heller could have easily admitted the obvious connection between militia service and bearing arms and acknowledged the parts of Article I which give Congress authority to pass laws for it. Scalia then could have made a case that over the last two centuries many things in the Amendment have evolved and changed as the nation has changed. So we are now to the point where the right is really no longer a militia connected right but is now an individual right. But what has also evolved is the government end of it and he simply could have also said that Congress may still pass reasonable regulations over firearms since Congress intended the right to be regulated from the start.

The basic error of Scalia was in serving a political and ideological master - the right and their 25 year crusade to get this done - while ignoring the other end of the Amendment.

The right party won the case but the wrong reasoning was used and a great opportunity to settle many of these perpetual arguments was blown.

Do you remember that conversation Turtle?

why in God's name would Scalia admit something that is false-that being "militia service" given that serving the federal government clearly is not a right of a free man that pre-exists the formation of the very state that would demand militia service?

and since Congress was never given any proper authority to regulate private arms, he soul have say that too

That is why your argument is so silly and why you spend SO MUCH TIME pretending that natural rights neither exist or matter.

ANYONE WHO BELIEVED IN THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL RIGHTS would not have authored a RECOGNITION of a RIGHT THAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOVERNMENT to be exercised.

Serving in the militia-as you claim the 2A is tied to is contrary to the entire premise that the founders operated under.

AND FINALLY, HOW can CONGRESS HAVE INTENDED a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT TO BE REGULATED FROM THE START

that again demonstrates a COMPLETE AND UTTER Failure to understand the entire context of the Bill of Rights
 
why in God's name would Scalia admit something that is false-that being "militia service" given that serving the federal government clearly is not a right of a free man that pre-exists the formation of the very state that would demand militia service?

Because the entire line about rights pre-existing is worth less that a bag of garden manure.

ANYONE WHO BELIEVED IN THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL RIGHTS would not have authored a RECOGNITION of a RIGHT THAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOVERNMENT to be exercised.

Again - you invoke your second favorite fallacy - the No True Scotsman fallacy.

AND FINALLY, HOW can CONGRESS HAVE INTENDED a PRE-EXISTING RIGHT TO BE REGULATED FROM THE START

There are no pre-existing rights. If you think there are simply tell me where to have found them before law made the rights we have.

Serving in the militia-as you claim the 2A is tied to is contrary to the entire premise that the founders operated under.

That is false. Militia service is the reason for the Amendment as an alternative to an expensive standing army. The linguistic experts cited by Scalia in Heller confirm this. Here it is for you


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.
 
Last edited:
There are no pre-existing rights. If you think there are simply tell me where to have found them before law made the rights we have.
On a purely philosophical level I would argue that the fact that you were born is evidence of a pre-existing right to life.
 
On a purely philosophical level I would argue that the fact that you were born is evidence of a pre-existing right to life.

right to life? You are born - you are alive - so is any other creature who is born..... what does that have to do with any right?
 
right to life? You are born - you are alive - so is any other creature who is born..... what does that have to do with any right?
Nice try, hey, but it is obvious by the way your question is worded that you are of the "rights are granted by the state" mindset.

Not interested.
 
Nice try, hey, but it is obvious by the way your question is worded that you are of the "rights are granted by the state" mindset.

Not interested.

Rights come from a two step process that begins with the people. When enough people decide that they want a certain behavior accepted and protected as a RIGHT, they exert enough power or influence over their government until government agrees to put that into law and we then have a RIGHT. And in the case of the USA - its government of the people, by the people and for the people so it ends with them also.

That makes much more practical and real sense than the idea of giant mythical gods cavorting in the ether while they dispense out rights like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers. But since that particular holiday is soon to be upon us, I guess some cannot shake the fantasy for reality. Its a shame.
 
Rights come from a two step process that begins with the people. When enough people decide that they want a certain behavior accepted and protected as a RIGHT, they exert enough power or influence over their government until government agrees to put that into law and we then have a RIGHT. And in the case of the USA - its government of the people, by the people and for the people so it ends with them also.

That makes much more practical and real sense than the idea of giant mythical gods cavorting in the ether while they dispense out rights like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers. But since that particular holiday is soon to be upon us, I guess some cannot shake the fantasy for reality. Its a shame.
Was "not interested" somehow confusing to you?
 
Rights come from a two step process that begins with the people. When enough people decide that they want a certain behavior accepted and protected as a RIGHT, they exert enough power or influence over their government until government agrees to put that into law and we then have a RIGHT. And in the case of the USA - its government of the people, by the people and for the people so it ends with them also.

That makes much more practical and real sense than the idea of giant mythical gods cavorting in the ether while they dispense out rights like so much Halloween candy to costumed toddlers. But since that particular holiday is soon to be upon us, I guess some cannot shake the fantasy for reality. Its a shame.

impossible!

you have no ability to create a right for another person, and neither do i, ..........and since you and i dont have any ability ,there is not way we can elect people and give them an ability which we do not HAVE in the first place.

laws do not create rights, they are created to secure the rights our humanity has given us.

name a law which has given us a right.
 
Back
Top Bottom