• 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!

2nd amendment rights.

Are restrictions on the purchase/sale of firearms constitutional?

  • Total voters
    61
Goshin said:
Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth
of Mass., 86-87


Nuff said...
Click to expand...

Quoting the Framers is like quoting the Bible, you can always find something to support your argument. Thomas Jefferson also described the establishment clause as a "wall of separation between church and state," but that doesn't make it law. We're talking about the wording of the Second Amendment itself. I don't see the word "peaceable" in the Second Amendment. Frankly, it's an contradiction that only '"peaceable" citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms, how can you be "peacable" when fighting a war in a militia?? Probably that's why they didn't word it that way in the Second Amendment. But then again, I shouldn't speculate beyond what we know, and what we know is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Your argument (or implied argument rather, since you're merely stating a conclusion with no support) is faulty. The second amendment doesn't apply to only members of the militia. So does the second amendment only apply to people who can be in the milita? Well, no.
Click to expand...

Does not matter. Even the "people" are US citizens, not foreign nationals.

I don't consider Penn and Teller Constitutional authority's, LMAO!
 
Last edited:
molten_dragon said:
Beats me. The constitution doesn't seem to cover that. I guess you have to make them yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I get the point you're making, I just want to play devil's advocate.
Click to expand...



Come now, sir. You know as well as I, that playing devil's advocate is one thing; willfully setting aside logic and reason, and willfully ignoring available evidence to the contrary, is something else.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Quoting the Framers is like quoting the Bible, you can always find something to support your argument. Thomas Jefferson also described the establishment clause as a "wall of separation between church and state," but that doesn't make it law. We're talking about the wording of the Second Amendment itself. I don't see the word "peaceable" in the Second Amendment. Frankly, it's an contradiction that only '"peaceable" citizens should be allowed to keep and bear arms, how can you be "peacable" when fighting a war in a militia?? Probably that's why they didn't word it that way in the Second Amendment. But then again, I shouldn't speculate beyond what we know, and what we know is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


I have dozens of Founder quotes explaining exactly what they intended the 2A to mean.

Show similar support for your position and your argument might be worth debating. As it is, you are simply being disingenuous. Would you seriously wish to set aside as irrelevant the words of the men who wrote the thing?

Nonsense.
 
Last edited:
molten_dragon said:
Fair enough. I'm in the same vein as you mostly. I feel that some gun restrictions are okay and others aren't.
Click to expand...

I am not advocating any restrictions. Being a US citizen and not crazy or a felon are not restrictions per say. Being a citizen is outright not a restriction. Being a felon you loose your rights. Crazy people are not considered responsible for their actions. These are not restrictions in that they go against the Constitution. Waiting times, gun bans etc that would stop a legal US citizen are restrictions.
 
Blackdog said:
Does not matter. Even the "people" are US citizens, not foreign nationals.
Click to expand...

You're entirely wrong, you can say it all you like, but it doesn't make it true, leftie. Just look at the Constitution, they say citizen when they mean citizen, and they saye people when they meant to refer to everybody including non citizens. Take Article II Section 1, where they say that the president must be a citizen. The framers were very careful with their words and they meant what they said. Why do liberals always want to re-write the constitution?
 
Goshin said:
I have dozens of Founder quotes explaining exactly what they intended the 2A to mean.

Show similar support for your position and your argument might be worth debating. As it is, you are simply being disingenuous. Would you seriously wish to set aside as irrelevant the words of the men who wrote the thing?

Nonsense.
Click to expand...

Why do I need to quote the people who wrote the second amendment to see where they said that they meant what they said? Why do I need to dredge up some quote from an arbitrary founding father just because you do? Their personal letters and documents aren't binding law. You've got dozens, provide them then. But dozens of quotes that aren't binding law don't match the persuasiveness of the text of the second amendment itself, and nowhere does the second amendment place a citizenship requirement or mental health requirement on gun ownership.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
You're entirely wrong, you can say it all you like, but it doesn't make it true, leftie. Just look at the Constitution, they say citizen when they mean citizen, and they saye people when they meant to refer to everybody including non citizens. Take Article II Section 1, where they say that the president must be a citizen. The framers were very careful with their words and they meant what they said. Why do liberals always want to re-write the constitution?
Click to expand...

Are you Navy Pride in disguise?
 
Goshin said:
Show similar support for your position and your argument might be worth debating. As it is, you are simply being disingenuous. Would you seriously wish to set aside as irrelevant the words of the men who wrote the thing?
Click to expand...

Here, i'll do you one better:
http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v11n1/Volokh.pdf

State constitutions from the same time the Federal Constitution was written would make provisions for protecting gun ownership rights referencing either citizens specifically or "people" to be inclusive of noncitizens. It's well known that the second amendment was intended to apply to noncitizens by the framers.
 
Last edited:
molten_dragon said:
Here is the text of the 2nd amendment.



Going strictly by what is written, restrictions on the purchase of firearms seem to be constitutional. Agree or disagree?

Note that I'm not asking whether they are a good idea or not, that's a separate debate. I'm only asking whether they are constitutional.
Click to expand...

I voted other

Constitutional rights can be restricted through due process and thus federal laws banning convicted felons from buying firearms is probably constitutional based on current interpretations of the commerce clause. However, the current interpretations of the commerce clause clearly violate its obvious and original intent so federal laws concerning firearms violate the tenth amendment.
 
Your Star said:
It could also mean weapons grade plutonium. Which, I think we can all agree on, shouldn't be made publicly available.
Click to expand...

not really true-the founders were intending individual militia weapons such as swords, rifles, pistols, sabers, muskets, dirks, and bayonets. Not cannon or bombs.
 
molten_dragon said:
How do you support that, since the constitution only mentions that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says absolutely nothing about the right to purchase or sell arms.
Click to expand...

geeez-if you are restricted in your ability to obtain a weapon that infringes on your right to bear that weapon. DUH

it would be like requiring a poll tax on registering to vote and claiming well that really doesn't restrict your right to actually vote
 
Guy Incognito said:
You're entirely wrong, you can say it all you like, but it doesn't make it true, leftie. Just look at the Constitution, they say citizen when they mean citizen, and they saye people when they meant to refer to everybody including non citizens. Take Article II Section 1, where they say that the president must be a citizen. The framers were very careful with their words and they meant what they said. Why do liberals always want to re-write the constitution?
Click to expand...

stop trolling Guy. Blackdog is no lefty and you are well known for your contrarian games on this subject. You are the liberal not BD.
Why don't you tell us what you think the second amendment means and what you want or don't want in gun control rather constantly attacking other peoples' positions without ever really defending one on your own.
 
TurtleDude said:
stop trolling Guy. Blackdog is no lefty and you are well known for your contrarian games on this subject. You are the liberal not BD.
Click to expand...

Apparently he's to the left of me on gun rights, and frankly that is all I know about the man.

TurtleDude said:
Why don't you tell us what you think the second amendment means and what you want or don't want in gun control rather constantly attacking other peoples' positions without ever really defending one on your own.
Click to expand...

I'm constantly defending my own position. I'm utterly pro-gun, I advocate no restrictions beyond those contained in the second amendment. I'm a big advocate of responsible gun ownership also, and I believe it is a social good that promotes a free society. Let me know if you need me to clear anything else up.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
I'm constantly defending my own position. I'm utterly pro-gun, I advocate no restrictions beyond those contained in the second amendment. I'm a big advocate of responsible gun ownership also, and I believe it is a social good that promotes a free society. Let me know if you need me to clear anything else up.
Click to expand...

And yet you voted "yes" in the poll???

Are restrictions on the purchase/sale of firearms constitutional?
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
And yet you voted "yes" in the poll???
Click to expand...

Yes, some restrictions on the purchase and sale like taxes, licenses, etc are constitutional.

The reason why some restrictions on sale, like a five day waiting period, are unconstitutional, is because they infringe the right to keep and bear. Mere restrictions on the purchase and sale are permissible, the question is what impact on the right to keep and bear arms do the restrictions have.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Apparently he's to the left of me on gun rights, and frankly that is all I know about the man.



I'm constantly defending my own position. I'm utterly pro-gun, I advocate no restrictions beyond those contained in the second amendment. I'm a big advocate of responsible gun ownership also, and I believe it is a social good that promotes a free society. Let me know if you need me to clear anything else up.
Click to expand...


LOL Guy, I am an expert on this issue, as both someone who has taught this subject and I have represented everything from small dealers to Class II manufacturers (machine gun makers). You aren't going to fool me with your claims. There are NO RESTRICTIONS IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT ON ANY ENTITY OTHER THAN CONGRESS (the federal government) so stop the nonsense.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yes, some restrictions on the purchase and sale like taxes, licenses, etc are constitutional.
Click to expand...

wrong Guy. licenses to own are not constitutional because no part of the constitution delegated that power to the federal government. Try again
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yes, the restrictions on the purchase and sale like taxes, licenses, etc are constitutional.
Click to expand...

Wait. You want to restrict the purchase of firearms by the citizenry, but you want "no restrictions beyond those contained in the second amendment." :crazy3:
 
Blackdog said:
Wait. You want to restrict the purchase of firearms by the citizenry, but you want "no restrictions beyond those contained in the second amendment." :crazy3:
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I do not want to restrict the purchase of fire arms by the citizenry. But the state has a right to decide who can be a gun dealer, and issue licenses as such. That's a restriction on sale. Get it?
 
Blackdog said:
Wait. You want to restrict the purchase of firearms by the citizenry, but you want "no restrictions beyond those contained in the second amendment." :crazy3:
Click to expand...

One of the sure signs of someone who is clueless about the constitution is when they state that the bill of rights actually restricts the RIGHTS of the citizens rather than the EXERCISE OF POWER by the federal government. THe Bill of RIghts contains NO restrictions on the inalienable rights the founders presumed existed PRIOR to establishment of the constitution.
 
Guy Incognito said:
What are you talking about? I do not want to restrict the purchase of fire arms by the citizenry. But the state has a right to decide who can be a gun dealer, and issue licenses as such. That's a restriction on sale. Get it?
Click to expand...

local or federal government? lets be precise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom