• 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!

Bullet Control

What do you think about putting stricter regulations on bullets rather than guns?

  • I am pro-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • I am pro-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.

    Votes: 28 84.8%

  • I am anti-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • I am anti-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Total voters
    33
disneydude said:
I love how you leave out the first part of the text of the second amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and then argue that it is "crystal clear".

While I don't favor gun control, just like much of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is subject to interpretation and is certainly not as "crystal clear" as you would claim.

Also, the types of weapons available today could not have been contemplated in any shape/form by the original writers of the Constitution so the types of "arms" they referred to is also subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...
The participle at the beginning of the sentence presents as justification, not as modification. It does not in any way, shape or form alter the meaning of the independent clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To argue otherwise would be at odds with how an English sentence is constructed.

The right is to the people. The right is that of keeping and bearing arms. The right is not to be infringed at all.

As for the meaning of "arms"--it means weapons, be they swords, or tactical nukes, or anything in between.
 
celticlord said:
The participle at the beginning of the sentence presents as justification, not as modification. It does not in any way, shape or form alter the meaning of the independent clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To argue otherwise would be at odds with how an English sentence is constructed.

The right is to the people. The right is that of keeping and bearing arms. The right is not to be infringed at all.

As for the meaning of "arms"--it means weapons, be they swords, or tactical nukes, or anything in between.
Click to expand...


Nice interpretation.
 
disneydude said:
Nice interpretation.
Click to expand...

There seems to be some confusion. If only there were some group of people who could clarify...

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
--George Washington

"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."
--James Monroe

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
--Samuel Adams

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine

"...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
--George Mason

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
--Patrick Henry

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
--Thomas Jefferson

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
--Thomas Jefferson

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
--Thomas Jefferson

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
--Adolph Hitler

Mmmmmm, I know whose side I'm on...
 
disneydude said:
I love how you leave out the first part of the text of the second amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and then argue that it is "crystal clear".
Click to expand...

It is crystal clear. If you read the whole 2nd amendment it does not say "The right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms necessary for the security of a free state shall not be infringed. So obviously The is the right of a well regulated militia for the security of a free state and a right of the people to keep and bear arms. Both of those rights shall not be infringed. seems redundant to list "people" and "militia" if the 2nd only applied to militias.

Reverend_Hellh0und posted this in another thread about 2nd amendment rights, it pretty much states the obvious about the 2nd amendment.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related"]YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment[/ame]


While I don't favor gun control, just like much of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is subject to interpretation and is certainly not as "crystal clear" as you would claim.
Click to expand...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed seems pretty crystal clear to me.




Also, the types of weapons available today could not have been contemplated in any shape/form by the original writers of the Constitution so the types of "arms" they referred to is also subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...

So buy that logic since they didn't have porn magazines, tv, radio and computers athe government can regulate what you say one those since the founding forefathers couldn't have contemplated those things?
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
It is crystal clear. If you read the whole 2nd amendment it does not say "The right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms necessary for the security of a free state shall not be infringed. So obviously The is the right of a well regulated militia for the security of a free state and a right of the people to keep and bear arms. Both of those rights shall not be infringed. seems redundant to list "people" and "militia" if the 2nd only applied to militias.

Reverend_Hellh0und posted this in another thread about 2nd amendment rights, it pretty much states the obvious about the 2nd amendment.
YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment



The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed seems pretty crystal clear to me.






So buy that logic since they didn't have porn magazines, tv, radio and computers athe government can regulate what you say one those since the founding forefathers couldn't have contemplated those things?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that I disagree. I am simply saying that just like other parts of the Constitution, it is subject to interpretation and not "crystal clear" as many suggest.
Again...the weapons of today could not have been anticipated by the authors of the Constitution and is subject to interpretation as well.
 
disneydude said:
I'm not saying that I disagree. I am simply saying that just like other parts of the Constitution, it is subject to interpretation and not "crystal clear" as many suggest.
Click to expand...
What the 2nd Amendment is is explicit.

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.
Click to expand...

Read the Bill of Rights and one thing becomes immediately apparent: The 2nd Amendment is the only amendment presented without modification of any kind. The right to keep and bear arms is the only one that receives the categorical protection to the people that it "shall not be infringed."

Can this really be coincidental? Can this be merely a grammatical accident?

Given the eloquence all of our founding fathers had in abundance, that hardly seems likely. Given the history each had in their experience with the British government, it also seems unlikely that any of the founding fathers could have been as feckless or as lacking in anticipation as some would suggest.

The 2nd Amendment stands as the least subtle of all of the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is the only right presented in the whole of the Constitution as an absolute and unequivocal right, the language of which gives it a sacrosanct status. Per the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is beyond disputation, is beyond mitigation, is beyond moderation. Per the 2nd Amendment, it is the one right that no government has the power to affect in even the slightest. That is the ineluctable consequence of the categorical phrasing "shall not be infringed."

disneydude said:
Again...the weapons of today could not have been anticipated by the authors of the Constitution and is subject to interpretation as well.
Click to expand...
The Land Pattern Musket (aka, "The Brown Bess") was standard issue in the British Army begin in 1722. By the time of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), the smoothbore musket was being displaced by the more accurate rifle.

Cannon of the American Revolution fired 3 and 4-pound shells. By the War of 1812, cannon were hurling 18 pound shells downrange.

Weapons technology advances in every age, and in every age man learns better how to wage war and demolish his fellow man. Even if the founding fathers could not imagine jet aircraft, tanks, or machine guns, to suggest they did not perceive the steady advance of military technology is to suggest they had a poor acquaintance with the profession of arms--is to suggest that which the biographies of the founding fathers flatly contradicts.

Additionally, the founding fathers were people who had just thrown off the forms and customs of British government, and the history of private ownership of arms in England was a history of control and restriction--different social classes in England were permitted to own different weapons. Is it credible to claim that, in drafting the 2nd Amendment, mindful of the British experience of the keeping of arms, that they would have intended to duplicate that experience by limiting the types of arms available to the general population, that despite rejecting nobility, monarchy, and aristocracy they would perpetuate one of the foundations of nobility, monarchy, and aristocracy--restricted access of the people to weapons?

The founding fathers need not have anticipated the highly efficient weapons we have today to recognize the imperative in a free society of not limiting the power of the individual man to arm himself, and not restricting the people's arms to a level intrinsically less than that of the government. Whatever arms soldiers carry, private citizens must be able to carry--that capacity of the private citizen is the sole guarantor of the free State, which is what the 2nd Amendment says....explicitly.
 
celticlord said:
What the 2nd Amendment is is explicit.



Read the Bill of Rights and one thing becomes immediately apparent: The 2nd Amendment is the only amendment presented without modification of any kind. The right to keep and bear arms is the only one that receives the categorical protection to the people that it "shall not be infringed."

Can this really be coincidental? Can this be merely a grammatical accident?

Given the eloquence all of our founding fathers had in abundance, that hardly seems likely. Given the history each had in their experience with the British government, it also seems unlikely that any of the founding fathers could have been as feckless or as lacking in anticipation as some would suggest.

The 2nd Amendment stands as the least subtle of all of the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is the only right presented in the whole of the Constitution as an absolute and unequivocal right, the language of which gives it a sacrosanct status. Per the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms is beyond disputation, is beyond mitigation, is beyond moderation. Per the 2nd Amendment, it is the one right that no government has the power to affect in even the slightest. That is the ineluctable consequence of the categorical phrasing "shall not be infringed."


The Land Pattern Musket (aka, "The Brown Bess") was standard issue in the British Army begin in 1722. By the time of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), the smoothbore musket was being displaced by the more accurate rifle.

Cannon of the American Revolution fired 3 and 4-pound shells. By the War of 1812, cannon were hurling 18 pound shells downrange.

Weapons technology advances in every age, and in every age man learns better how to wage war and demolish his fellow man. Even if the founding fathers could not imagine jet aircraft, tanks, or machine guns, to suggest they did not perceive the steady advance of military technology is to suggest they had a poor acquaintance with the profession of arms--is to suggest that which the biographies of the founding fathers flatly contradicts.

Additionally, the founding fathers were people who had just thrown off the forms and customs of British government, and the history of private ownership of arms in England was a history of control and restriction--different social classes in England were permitted to own different weapons. Is it credible to claim that, in drafting the 2nd Amendment, mindful of the British experience of the keeping of arms, that they would have intended to duplicate that experience by limiting the types of arms available to the general population, that despite rejecting nobility, monarchy, and aristocracy they would perpetuate one of the foundations of nobility, monarchy, and aristocracy--restricted access of the people to weapons?

The founding fathers need not have anticipated the highly efficient weapons we have today to recognize the imperative in a free society of not limiting the power of the individual man to arm himself, and not restricting the people's arms to a level intrinsically less than that of the government. Whatever arms soldiers carry, private citizens must be able to carry--that capacity of the private citizen is the sole guarantor of the free State, which is what the 2nd Amendment says....explicitly.
Click to expand...

Excellent interpretation.
 
We need bullet control

16437__matrix3_l.jpg


Just like neo :mrgreen: ..
 
Cilogy said:
I think we are slowly reaching the tipping point in gun violence. Something has to be done. Am I the one to decide? No. I don't want to be.
Click to expand...
Gun violence is lower now than it was 15 years ago.

Making it harder for the law abiding to get and use guns will NOT lower gun violence.
 
disneydude said:
Also, the types of weapons available today could not have been contemplated in any shape/form by the original writers of the Constitution ...
Click to expand...
This applies to the telephone. Does this mean that the 4th amendment doesnt apply?
This also applies to CNN and the internet. Does this mean that the 1st amendment doesn;t apply?

so the types of "arms" they referred to is also subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...
Tell us how any firearm you care to mention isnt covered by the term as it is used in the 2nd.
 
The left needs to leave gun ownership alone.

EVERY SINGLE TIME the left mentions gun control somebody needs to smash them in the face with a 9-Iron.

Eventually, even the liberal hippy leftist wackos will start to learn that usurping our 2nd Amendment rights is a bad idea.

We have the right to bear arms .... the leftists need to learn to respect the constitution.
 
disneydude said:
I'm not saying that I disagree. I am simply saying that just like other parts of the Constitution, it is subject to interpretation and not "crystal clear" as many suggest.
Click to expand...

What's not clear about "shall not be infringed"?


disneydude said:
Again...the weapons of today could not have been anticipated by the authors of the Constitution and is subject to interpretation as well.
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant.
 
jamesrage said:
It is crystal clear. If you read the whole 2nd amendment it does not say "The right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms necessary for the security of a free state shall not be infringed. So obviously The is the right of a well regulated militia for the security of a free state and a right of the people to keep and bear arms. Both of those rights shall not be infringed. seems redundant to list "people" and "militia" if the 2nd only applied to militias.

Reverend_Hellh0und posted this in another thread about 2nd amendment rights, it pretty much states the obvious about the 2nd amendment.
YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that just doesn't fly. You have to read it in the context of the time at which it was written. At that time, there was no standing army, the militia was made up of the people. Each and every able bodied man was expected to keep weapons in the home so that in times of crisis, they could come out and serve their town, state or country's defense. In fact, people of the day owned cannons and other seige-type weapons because the government really didn't own much military hardware at all. That's precisely why the 2nd amendment is written as it is, it was guaranteeing the rights of the people, in the expected duty to protect their nation, to bear arms.

Today, however, we do have a standing army, that requirement is no longer present and therefore, the 2nd amendment, in the context in which it was written, has been re-interpreted. While I have no problem whatsoever with personal firearm ownership, relying on a mis-reading, out of context, passage written 200+ years ago is a bit silly.
 
Vader said:
EVERY SINGLE TIME the left mentions gun control somebody needs to smash them in the face with a 9-Iron.
Click to expand...

If we do that, then they are going to try and restrict my right to own golf clubs. Its obvious that Callaway golf is at the root of violence in this country. :2razz:
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Today, however, we do have a standing army, that requirement is no longer present and therefore, the 2nd amendment, in the context in which it was written, has been re-interpreted.
Click to expand...
The creation of a strong standing army in no way replaces the necessity of a militia. People will -always- need the means to protect themselves, individually and collectively, as the state can NEVER sufficiently protect us from all dangers.

And, in any event, you're arguing that the purpose of the 2nd is obsolete. Even if that were true, it doesn't negate its force of law.
 
Goobieman said:
The creation of a strong standing army in no way replaces the necessity of a militia. People will -always- need the means to protect themselves, individually and collectively, as the state can NEVER sufficiently protect us from all dangers.
Click to expand...

But the amendment was never put in place to guarantee personal protection. I'm not arguing with your point, I agree with it, I'm just saying that using the 2nd amendment to support said point doesn't work.

And, in any event, you're arguing that the purpose of the 2nd is obsolete. Even if that were true, it doesn't negate its force of law.
Click to expand...

No, and we do have laws that do give us the right to own firearms and that's fine. I'm just arguing against the gun nuts who want to be able to own bazookas and tanks and anti-aircraft weapon and nukes (and yes, there are these nutballs out there) because they think the 2nd amendment gives them that right.

It doesn't. It never did.
 
Cephus said:
Unfortunately, that just doesn't fly. You have to read it in the context of the time at which it was written. At that time, there was no standing army, the militia was made up of the people. Each and every able bodied man was expected to keep weapons in the home so that in times of crisis, they could come out and serve their town, state or country's defense. In fact, people of the day owned cannons and other seige-type weapons because the government really didn't own much military hardware at all. That's precisely why the 2nd amendment is written as it is, it was guaranteeing the rights of the people, in the expected duty to protect their nation, to bear arms.

Today, however, we do have a standing army, that requirement is no longer present and therefore, the 2nd amendment, in the context in which it was written, has been re-interpreted. While I have no problem whatsoever with personal firearm ownership, relying on a mis-reading, out of context, passage written 200+ years ago is a bit silly.
Click to expand...


Then again, in the context in which it was written, Alexander Hamilton presumed the existence of a standing army and a militia and stated that if the would-be tyrant, what we would call an "obama" today, wanted to use those forces to infringe on the citizen's liberties, the citizens would still have the final recourse of overthrowing they tyrant with their own guns.

Under absolutely no circumstances can it be imagined that the people who wrote the Second Amendment envisioned a future in which a standing army or an organized militia would justify the deprivation of the people's right to own guns. That was covered more than adequately in Federalist 28.
 
Cephus said:
But the amendment was never put in place to guarantee personal protection. I'm not arguing with your point, I agree with it, I'm just saying that using the 2nd amendment to support said point doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. It protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, part of which is the use of that right in personal self-defense. It may have been done so that said right can always be exercised collectively, but to ensure that, they protected the right at the individual level.

I'm just arguing against the gun nuts who want to be able to own bazookas and tanks and anti-aircraft weapon and nukes (and yes, there are these nutballs out there) because they think the 2nd amendment gives them that right.
Click to expand...
I don't worry myself with that. There's no way to argue that the term "arms" doesnt cover any and all firearms, which is the extent of my concern on that issue.
 
Cephus said:
Unfortunately, that just doesn't fly. You have to read it in the context of the time at which it was written. At that time, there was no standing army, the militia was made up of the people. Each and every able bodied man was expected to keep weapons in the home so that in times of crisis, they could come out and serve their town, state or country's defense. In fact, people of the day owned cannons and other seige-type weapons because the government really didn't own much military hardware at all. That's precisely why the 2nd amendment is written as it is, it was guaranteeing the rights of the people, in the expected duty to protect their nation, to bear arms.
Click to expand...
Actually, your argument is what doesn't fly. In fact it fails miserably.

1. There was no standing army because the founding fathers did not WANT there to be a standing army. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to raise and support Armies, but funding for that is not allowed to extend past two years; that same section empowers Congress to maintain a Navy. The reasoning is not hard to divine: Armies are too easily used to oppress the people, while a navy is less apt to be used thus.

2. The justification is not just to protect the state, but to protect the "free State". An armed population is vital not just to preserving independence but also to preserving liberty.

3. If you're going to argue historical context, at least attempt to get the historical context somewhat correct.

Cephus said:
Today, however, we do have a standing army, that requirement is no longer present and therefore, the 2nd amendment, in the context in which it was written, has been re-interpreted. While I have no problem whatsoever with personal firearm ownership, relying on a mis-reading, out of context, passage written 200+ years ago is a bit silly.
Click to expand...
What is silly is your casual dismissal of the 2nd Amendment.

What is silly is the convolutions you are willing to traverse in a futile and fairly foolish effort to circumvent the very simple language "shall not be infringed."

What is silly is your notion that the government has any legal or moral right to regulate the ownership of weapons. The 2nd Amendment leaves no room for discussion on this; there is no such right. The right is of the people, it is an individual right (as are all the rights in the Bill of Rights), and it is beyond the competence of government to limit, regulate, or remove that right.

What is silly is pretending the 2nd Amendment asserts anything but this.
 
Why do we need to right to carry firearms?
Protection

Protection from what?
From the loons and nuts

But isn't that why the loons and nuts exist?
No it's something else, like the media or entertainment.

Ok then we need to do something about that!
But what?
 
Cilogy said:
Why do we need to right to carry firearms?
Protection

Protection from what?
From the loons and nuts

But isn't that why the loons and nuts exist?No it's something else, like the media or entertainment.

Ok then we need to do something about that!
But what?
Click to expand...

Cilogy, that made very little sense. Are you attempting to suggest that loons and nuts exist because guns exist? If not, you need to work on communicating clearly, because that's what it sounded like.

If you're suggesting we FEAR loons and nuts because they might have guns...they might also have swords, machetes, knives, poison gases (see Aum Shin Ryo), or other means of mayhem.

If you wish to consider the anti-gunner's PERFECT WORLD, a world in which there are no guns, there IS a historical example....1066 AD in what is now called England. If you will examine that period, I think you will find it was hardly peaceful.

In other words, even if you could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear (and making all guns go away is pure fantasy, no matter what laws are passed), it would not even come close to ending violence and lunacy.



G.
 
Goshin said:
Cilogy, that made very little sense. Are you attempting to suggest that loons and nuts exist because guns exist? If not, you need to work on communicating clearly, because that's what it sounded like.

If you're suggesting we FEAR loons and nuts because they might have guns...they might also have swords, machetes, knives, poison gases (see Aum Shin Ryo), or other means of mayhem.

If you wish to consider the anti-gunner's PERFECT WORLD, a world in which there are no guns, there IS a historical example....1066 AD in what is now called England. If you will examine that period, I think you will find it was hardly peaceful.

In other words, even if you could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear (and making all guns go away is pure fantasy, no matter what laws are passed), it would not even come close to ending violence and lunacy.



G.
Click to expand...

:lol: lol, nevermind you misunderstood.

:mrgreen:
 
Cilogy said:
:lol: lol, nevermind you misunderstood.

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Communication is sender-dependent. If the message is unclear... don't blame the recipient.

Unless you were just being silly, which would figure.

G
 
Cilogy said:
Why do we need to right to carry firearms?
Protection

Protection from what?
From the loons and nuts
Click to expand...
Funny... I though it was protection from criminals.
But then, that wouldn't be a strawman you could easily beat down...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom