• 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 Taxation Slavery?

Is Taxation Slavery?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 16.7%
  • No

    Votes: 53 73.6%
  • Other (Explain)

    Votes: 7 9.7%

  • Total voters
    72
You really should read the second amendment before you debate it...

ricksfolly

I have read the second amendment. I have also read quotes by the founding fathers. By reading both I am 100% sure of what it means.
 
It still required consent of the owner of the territory to turn it over to be made into another state. Therefore, Article IV Section III Clause I does apply. Now riddle me this, why is it legal for West Virginia to secede and the southern states wasn't?

Well I suppose then it depends on who owned it. I would argue the only role the Union needed to play was to determine if they wanted to accept WV into the Union. Anything was left up to Virginians and future West Virginians and the Confederacy.

I do not believe the Southern States did anything wrong in seceding from the Union. I believe it was their right to do so. I think the North would have been seriously hurt economically with the South's departure.
 
Well I suppose then it depends on who owned it. I would argue the only role the Union needed to play was to determine if they wanted to accept WV into the Union. Anything was left up to Virginians and future West Virginians and the Confederacy.

I do not believe the Southern States did anything wrong in seceding from the Union. I believe it was their right to do so. I think the North would have been seriously hurt economically with the South's departure.

I agree with your assessment.
 
You really should read the second amendment before you debate it...

ricksfolly

He did-he clearly understands it far better than you do.
 
He did. Thats why he said what he said.

He may have read the original version of the second amendment, but he obviously didn't understand it, especially the part that says

"...only members of a well organized militia..."

What could be plainer?

ricksfolly
 
He may have read the original version of the second amendment, but he obviously didn't understand it, especially the part that says

"...only members of a well organized militia..."

What could be plainer?

ricksfolly

A well organized militia is everyone above the age of 18.
 
:slapme: Calling American!:roll:

I give you the Militia Act of 1792.

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,

Accounting now for the gender and racial equality of today this would extend to women and minorities. Thus, everyone that is above the age of 18 is automatically enrolled into the militia.
 
I give you the Militia Act of 1792.



Accounting now for the gender and racial equality of today this would extend to women and minorities. Thus, everyone that is above the age of 18 is automatically enrolled into the militia.

Stop it. You're cracking me up.:lol:
 
He may have read the original version of the second amendment, but he obviously didn't understand it, especially the part that says

"...only members of a well organized militia..."

What could be plainer?

ricksfolly

It doesn't say that--if it did the wording would be-the right of those serving in well regulated militias to keep and bear arms s hall not be infringed

you need to stop interpreting the amendment so that it supports your anti gun psychobabble and start interpreting it consistent with the rest of the bill of rights
 
Ladies and gentlemen. Fasten your ****ing seat belts. This thread is now going into Pee Wee Herman Overdrive.:2dancing:
 
Ladies and gentlemen. Fasten your ****ing seat belts. This thread is now going into Pee Wee Herman Overdrive.:2dancing:

stay out of the porno theater--or sit in the very back row
 
It doesn't say that--if it did the wording would be-the right of those serving in well regulated militias to keep and bear arms s hall not be infringed

you need to stop interpreting the amendment so that it supports your anti gun psychobabble and start interpreting it consistent with the rest of the bill of rights

Okay, show me the part where it says NON-MILITIA members (CIVILIANS) have the right and I'll shut up... nothing implied, actual words.

It will always be a mystery to me how the meaning of the terms got so screwed up.

ricksfolly
 
Okay, show me the part where it says NON-MILITIA members (CIVILIANS) have the right and I'll shut up... nothing implied, actual words.

It will always be a mystery to me how the meaning of the terms got so screwed up.

ricksfolly
Oh ****...
 
Okay, show me the part where it says NON-MILITIA members (CIVILIANS) have the right and I'll shut up... nothing implied, actual words.

It will always be a mystery to me how the meaning of the terms got so screwed up.

ricksfolly

so it is your opinion that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a mistake and the founders -who were able to use "the several states" in other areas of the USC and the BoR erred since what they really wanted to say was "the right of the several states to arm militias shall not be infringed

those words alone (which Numerous scholars have noted are not dependent upon the first clause) is your answer

here is your problem and why I know you are clueless

1) the BoR contains no limitations on individual rights assumed to exist prior to the constitution

2) there is no delegation of power to the federal government to preclude arms ownership by non militia members

then we have the obvious--how can a militia be effectively mustered from unarmed civilians. to have a militia, means people have to be armed before the need arises.
 
Okay, show me the part where it says NON-MILITIA members (CIVILIANS) have the right and I'll shut up... nothing implied, actual words.
Maybe you ought to actually read the amendment.

...the right of THE PEOPLE...

Not the militia, not the state, not the people in the militia, but the people.
 
Maybe you ought to actually read the amendment.

...the right of THE PEOPLE...

Not the militia, not the state, not the people in the militia, but the people.

I am the people. I rule, because I said so.
 
Back
Top Bottom