• 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!

Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

Are gun owners STILL paranoid?

  • Total voters
    25
Goobieman said:
Psst... your ignorace is showing.
The definition of "arms" ans used in the 2nd has been addressed in 2 SCotUS rulings.

My position is that any weapon that does not fall under the definition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd amendment bay be banned without violating the Constitution; by extentsion, any weapon that DOES fall under that definition cannot.

If you don't understand that position, figure it out.
If you disagree with that position, explain why.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court has not defined the extent to which the second amendment extends "arms". Per their usual procedure, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue before them in the narrowest of terms, that was whether the D.C. ban on handguns was Constitutional. Its not as clear as you would argue it is. To make that argument is in an of itself an exposure of ignorance.
 
disneydude said:
The Supreme Court has not defined the extent to which the second amendment extends "arms".
Click to expand...
I suggest you come back when you have some idea of what you are talking about.
 
disneydude said:
The Constitution is not black/white nor will it ever be. If it were, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
LII: Constitution
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Seems like pretty plain english to me, and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED pretty much eliminates any "grey area" BTW, the Bill of Rights is not subject to interpretation, nor was it ever, only amendment 11 and up are subject, that is in the pre-amble, the founders writings, and the 10th.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Firearms control is specifically restricted from the federal government by the second amendment, it is also supposed to be restricted from the states, but that is another battle.
None of this is in a foreign language, and as you can see, there is no room for interpretation, I bolded the commas because they denote continuance of thought grammatically.




Just as in other rights defined in the bill of rights and elsewhere in the Constitution....they are not absolute.
Click to expand...
Rights are absolute, the exercise therein are not, I have a right to own firearms of my choosing, I do not have a right to murder someone with the owned firearm, or endanger my neighbor by shooting it too close to their house, all of the amendments are in check the same way.
Click to expand...
 
disneydude said:
and I suggest that you come back when you are capable of understanding a Supreme Court opinion.
Click to expand...
Ah yes... back to the 'you're too stupid' argument you use when you know you cannot effectively discuss something. Your concession of the point is noted.

You have my position.
You refuse to learn what you need to know in order to have an intelligent discussion regarding same.
Given that, there's no way you can legitimately criticize my positon, and so, it stands.

Next?
 
LaMidRighter said:
LII: Constitution
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Seems like pretty plain english to me, and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED pretty much eliminates any "grey area" BTW, the Bill of Rights is not subject to interpretation, nor was it ever, only amendment 11 and up are subject, that is in the pre-amble, the founders writings, and the 10th.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Firearms control is specifically restricted from the federal government by the second amendment, it is also supposed to be restricted from the states, but that is another battle.
None of this is in a foreign language, and as you can see, there is no room for interpretation, I bolded the commas because they denote continuance of thought grammatically.




Rights are absolute, the exercise therein are not, I have a right to own firearms of my choosing, I do not have a right to murder someone with the owned firearm, or endanger my neighbor by shooting it too close to their house, all of the amendments are in check the same way.
Click to expand...

Again...that is a very simplistic interpretation of the Constitution. One which has never been true in actuality. If in fact that Constitution were black/white as you want to believe, again...there would be no need for the Supreme Court because there would be no analysis for which the court to engage in. The fact that there is a Supreme Court flys in the face of the black/white interpretation you want there to be.
Click to expand...
 
Goobieman said:
Ah yes... back to the 'you're too stupid' argument you use when you know you cannot effectively discuss something. Your concession of the point is noted.

You have my position.
You refuse to learn what you need to know in order to have an intelligent discussion regarding same.
Given that, there's no way you can legitimately criticize my positon, and so, it stands.

Next?
Click to expand...

If you missed it....I was replying to your post of arrogance.

BTW....we don't have your "position"...all we have are beliefs that you have posted that you have continually refused to provide a basis for or analyze under Constitutional Scrutiny.....and is actually getting to be quite borrring....
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
LaMidRighter said:
Again...that is a very simplistic interpretation of the Constitution. One which has never been true in actuality. If in fact that Constitution were black/white as you want to believe, again...there would be no need for the Supreme Court because there would be no analysis for which the court to engage in. The fact that there is a Supreme Court flys in the face of the black/white interpretation you want there to be.
Click to expand...

It was always my interpretation that the courts where to judge if laws where legit in reference to the Constitution. IMO the Constitution is pretty clear.
Click to expand...
 
disneydude said:
Again...that is a very simplistic interpretation of the Constitution. One which has never been true in actuality. If in fact that Constitution were black/white as you want to believe, again...there would be no need for the Supreme Court because there would be no analysis for which the court to engage in.
Click to expand...
That is a complete load of horse ****, the constitution is written in plain english, that you defer to the court is irrelevant. The court hears cases in which laws are suspect, many of these laws arise from municipalities, states, counties, individuals, and even our own federal government overstepping their powers, and the only "grey area" comes from willful, semantic mis-interpretation of the plain english contained therein.
The fact that there is a Supreme Court flys in the face of the black/white interpretation you want there to be.
Click to expand...
Again, appeal to the court. The court has many decisions that have been reversed by later courts, the court contains nine human beings appointed by one and voted on by a fraction of the population, if a majority on the court has an agenda, which some have, then laws will be interpreted in the manor of said agenda, even though the rare justice with integrity can be found. The fact is that the BOR as written is not subject to interpretation, the laws and behaviors in the secondary are.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
That is a complete load of horse ****, the constitution is written in plain english, that you defer to the court is irrelevant. The court hears cases in which laws are suspect, many of these laws arise from municipalities, states, counties, individuals, and even our own federal government overstepping their powers, and the only "grey area" comes from willful, semantic mis-interpretation of the plain english contained therein. Again, appeal to the court. The court has many decisions that have been reversed by later courts, the court contains nine human beings appointed by one and voted on by a fraction of the population, if a majority on the court has an agenda, which some have, then laws will be interpreted in the manor of said agenda, even though the rare justice with integrity can be found. The fact is that the BOR as written is not subject to interpretation, the laws and behaviors in the secondary are.
Click to expand...

The fact that very VERY few Supreme Court decisions are unanimous should be an indication that the Constitution is not as black/white as you want to believe that it is.

If the Constitution is as b/w as you say it is....for what possible purpose was the Supreme Court set up? We could simply have one person read the Constitution and make a ruling.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
The fact that very VERY few Supreme Court decisions are unanimous should be an indication that the Constitution is not as black/white as you want to believe that it is.
Click to expand...
Or it can be proof that there is a variance of agenda, it could be either, but it doesn't exclude the semantics of gun control.

If the Constitution is as b/w as you say it is....for what possible purpose was the Supreme Court set up? We could simply have one person read the Constitution and make a ruling.
Click to expand...
And you accuse others of not understanding the court? The court was established to ensure that the laws contained within the constitution are not violated by other branches of government, also that laws passed measure up to the constitution, that interpretation of constitutional protections occur is a secondary result, and it's consequences are real.
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
Or it can be proof that there is a variance of agenda, it could be either, but it doesn't exclude the semantics of gun control.

And you accuse others of not understanding the court? The court was established to ensure that the laws contained within the constitution are not violated by other branches of government, also that laws passed measure up to the constitution, that interpretation of constitutional protections occur is a secondary result, and it's consequences are real.
Click to expand...


Exactly...and if the laws were as black/white as you argue they are...there would never be an issue.
Click to expand...
 
Has it been an issue since the conventions, or just recently?
 
disneydude said:
LaMidRighter said:
Exactly...and if the laws were as black/white as you argue they are...there would never be an issue.
Click to expand...

People can twist an individual word that has a clearly defined meaning into something it is not and never was intended to be used for.

Word... for an individual.

What's up... for a phrase.

Or, how about this one.

Gay.

If a society can transform individual words and phrases into something more to their liking (or not) what makes you think that we are not capable of transforming a paragraph into what we WANT?

As was said before...

the only "grey area" comes from willful, semantic mis-interpretation of the plain english contained therein.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
disneydude said:
LaMidRighter said:
Exactly...and if the laws were as black/white as you argue they are...there would never be an issue.
Click to expand...
Are you paying attention? I said agenda's change the situation, that is not to be interpreted as an indication that "grey area" exists in the rights contained within the BOR, that is the flawed human condition that arises from a lack of judicial and constitutional integrity. The rights are in fact absolute, the consequences of abusing them are not. We have a right to own any firearms we choose, we do NOT have a right to use them to commit murder, or open fire anywhere we choose, the difference is the danger that exists from using the firearm incorrectly v. owning the firearm
Click to expand...
 
American said:
Has it been an issue since the conventions, or just recently?
Click to expand...

You know how this issue plays. It's like herpes. Forever there, but it flares up now and then.

P.S. your avatar is scaring the **** out of me. PLEASE, PLEASE, change it!! :shock:
 
I do want to thank Disneydude however, he is a concrete example of the arguments against the second amendment and an smaller scale example of what we are up against, this should not be construed as an insult by any means, but it strengthens the point that we aren't paranoid about people wanting our guns, maybe not Disney specifically, but the more extreme side of the movement certainly does.
 
disneydude said:
BTW....we don't have your "position"...
Click to expand...
Ah, the lengths you will go to avoid having to admit that you do not know enough about a topic to discuss it and that you dont have the desire to rid yourself of your ignorance.

My position is abundantly clear to anyone that can read -- but you are too ignorant of the subject to discuss it intelligently.

Oh well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom