• 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!

Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

Is this a "strong argument" for banning 'assault weapons'?

  • Total voters
    40
nerv14 said:
Thats irrelevant to the issue about what rights in the Constitution mean.
Click to expand...

Okay, whatever you say then.

Then the Second Amendment means EXACTLY what is written down on the paper, that the federal government has absolutely no authority to interfere with the gun purchases of anyone, and that since the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights to the States, it means also that the States have no authority to regulate gun ownership.

Thread closed.
 
nerv14 said:
So by definition, you are saying that any expression can't harm someone else???
Click to expand...
Expressions that fall under the right of free speech and thus the protection of the Constitution. Correct.

Well that is an exception to a literal right of "freedom of speech".
Click to expand...
No. It is not.

I think that is too simplistic.
Click to expand...
However simplistinc you think it is, it is absoutely correct.

I disagree, because the Constitution is based on what the founding father's intended or else all of the Rights in the Constitution would contridict.
Click to expand...
As prevuously noted, you're wrong.

Since the intent of the Second Amendment is to allow people to have guns, a 1 day waiting period on that does not violate the right.
Click to expand...
As previously illustrated, in an argument you have not addressed, you're wrong.
 
nerv14 said:
Thats irrelevant to the issue about what rights in the Constitution mean.

Just because the literal Second Amendment doesn't infringe on other rights (such as the First Amendment can) that doesn't mean that the Second Amendment must be taken completely literally.

If Constitutional rights must be taken literally, then it doesn't matter if the First Amendment starts violating the right to life. It would then be Unconstitutional to violate the First Amendment anyway even if it did harm others.
Click to expand...

Kindly tell me what part of the constitution actually allows the federal government the power to impose a waiting period.
 
TurtleDude said:
Kindly tell me what part of the constitution actually allows the federal government the power to impose a waiting period.
Click to expand...

Nothing. But I think a state should be able to.


There has been enough discussions for other posts though. I made my point and no one has refutted it. I am sure everyone thinks the same about their points too, but thats life.
 
nerv14 said:
Nothing. But I think a state should be able to.


There has been enough discussions for other posts though. I made my point and no one has refutted it. I am sure everyone thinks the same about their points too, but thats life.
Click to expand...

well since the 9th circuit just incorporated the 2nd to the states through the 14th, even that might be suspect.


What was there to refute? The federal government has no proper power to impose a waiting period and said period is worthless in terms of doing anything positive.
 
Agghh, for all the liberals out there who want to put guns out let me explain something, guns in this country are not for hunting or self deffense (those are secondary reasons) They are for changing government when it oversteps its bounds and becomes destructive of the reasons it was put in place in the first place i.e. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

thank you for your time.
 
nerv14 said:
Nothing. But I think a state should be able to.
Click to expand...
The 2nd amendment prohibits this, as applied to the actions of a state by the 14th amendment.

There has been enough discussions for other posts though. I made my point and no one has refutted it.
Click to expand...
This is an amazingly dishonest statement.
 
kamino said:
Agghh, for all the liberals out there who want to put guns out let me explain something, guns in this country are not for hunting or self deffense (those are secondary reasons) They are for changing government when it oversteps its bounds and becomes destructive of the reasons it was put in place in the first place i.e. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

thank you for your time.
Click to expand...


Not many people speak the truth the way you do. :2wave:
 
kamino said:
Agghh, for all the liberals out there who want to put guns out let me explain something, guns in this country are not for hunting or self deffense (those are secondary reasons) They are for changing government when it oversteps its bounds and becomes destructive of the reasons it was put in place in the first place i.e. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

thank you for your time.
Click to expand...




/thread





.......
 
Goobieman said:
Funny thing is, when you suggest applying the restrictions they suggest do not infringe the right to arms to rights they DO like, they get all flustered.

Imagine, needing to get a license to report the news.
Click to expand...

Well if you want on the broadcast news some one needs a license.

Imagine, needing to get a license to have an abortion.
Click to expand...

I hope the Dr. has one.


Imagine, needing a 5-day wait to send a letter to the editor, so that the government can be sure that the letter does not include libel, slander, sedition, 'fighting words', etc.
Click to expand...

I'm sure all letters to the editor are screened.
 
winston53660 said:
Well if you want on the broadcast news some one needs a license.
Click to expand...
And if not...?

I hope the Dr. has one.
Click to expand...
We both know we're talking about the mother, not the doctor, so that wasn;t even a clever dodge...

I'm sure all letters to the editor are screened.
Click to expand...
Again, not even a clever dodge.

Fact of the matter is, if these things were in place, you (and all the anti-gun liberals) would be in an uproar about how your rights were being violated.
 
No, because by banning weapons, you ensure that the only people who own them are criminals, who don't give a rat's ass about them being illegal.
 
Goobieman said:
And if not...?


We both know we're talking about the mother, not the doctor, so that wasn;t even a clever dodge...


Again, not even a clever dodge.

Fact of the matter is, if these things were in place, you (and all the anti-gun liberals) would be in an uproar about how your rights were being violated.
Click to expand...


Fact is all I mentioned are already in place. Stop with the histrionics and trolling. BTW I do think we have a right to own weapons unlike you though I do not want to see them sold a my local 7-11.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Fact is all I mentioned are already in place.
Click to expand...
No, no they are not.
-Reporters do -not- need licenses to report the news.
-Women do -not- need licenses to get abortions
-Letters to the editor are -not- held by the government for 5 days to check them for illegal content.

So, stop the dishonesty and avoidance...
 
Goobieman said:
The 2nd amendment prohibits this, as applied to the actions of a state by the 14th amendment.


This is an amazingly dishonest statement.
Click to expand...

Ive wasted enough time in this thread. I may think that everyone is being "dishonest" from what I feel is ignoring information about what rights and the Constitution mean, but I am willing to accept that we believe differently. I am not going to call you guys liers for having your own views.

and of course I will say that if having a 1 day waiting period on guns doesn't violate the 2nd amendment, then a state is able to impose those waiting periods. I am simply saying that there doesn't need to be a violation of the 10th amendment for a waiting period.
 
kamino said:
Agghh, for all the liberals out there who want to put guns out let me explain something, guns in this country are not for hunting or self deffense (those are secondary reasons) They are for changing government when it oversteps its bounds and becomes destructive of the reasons it was put in place in the first place i.e. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

:angel?: Where is that right in the Constitution? :poke
 
Jerry said:
I'm dead serious. Where is that right in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

What difference does it make? The Ninth Amendment precludes your entire argument.
 
Ethereal said:
What difference does it make? The Ninth Amendment precludes your entire argument.
Click to expand...

So you admit that "the right of the people to over through their government" is not, in fact, in the Constitution?
 
Jerry said:
So you admit that "the right of the people to over through their government" is not, in fact, in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

It is not explicitly mentioned, but the Constitution protects that right nonetheless.
 
Ethereal said:
It is not explicitly mentioned, but the Constitution protects that right nonetheless.
Click to expand...

So we agree that revolution is, in fact, unconstitutional.

We might even call it treason.
 
Jerry said:
So we agree that revolution is, in fact, unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The Ninth Amendment affirms explicitly the existence of unenumerated rights, and since the government does not have the authority to govern without our consent it stands to reason we retain the right to dissolve it - by force if necessary.

And although the DOI is not legally enforceable, it is still a philosophical tool which judges use to interpret the law. The Constitution and the DOI are not totally exclusive to one another. They form both the legal and philosophical basis for American law.

We might even call it treason.
Click to expand...

It depends.
 
Ethereal said:
Absolutely not. The Ninth Amendment affirms explicitly the existence of unenumerated rights, and since the government does not have the authority to govern without our consent it stands to reason we retain the right to dissolve it - by force if necessary.
Click to expand...

That's all opinion.

I'm asking you to back that subjective personal interpretation with some hard facts.

The way I see it, if revolution were an actual right, then the founders would have put it in the Constitution. A few words in the second Amendment is all it would have took.
 
Jerry said:
That's all opinion.
Click to expand...

What about it is an opinion? The following are facts:

1. The Ninth Amendment affirms explicitly the existence of unenumerated rights.
2. The government does not retain the authority to govern without the consent of the people.

Based upon these simple facts, it stands to reason that dissolution of government - by force, if necessary - is an implied right of the people.

The way I see it, if revolution were an actual right, then the founders would have put it in the Constitution. A few words in the second Amendment is all it would have took.
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers wrote the following sentence and agreed upon it as being valid:

…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…

Do you think they were making idle statements? Yes, said clause is not legally enforceable, but it doesn't need to be. The DOI informs upon the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment affirms explicitly the existence of unenumerated rights. And it's funny you should mention the Second Amendment; what, do you suppose, is its fundamental reason for existing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom