• 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
You could make that case for the hunter who needs to shoot game to feed his family, but definitely not for the sport in a country that is supposed to be civilized.

ricksfolly
A case does not need to be made for the RKBA. If you seek to abridge the right, you must make a case against it.

At least that's the way it works according to all those hearsay-filled law books ... :roll:
 
Funny thing is, if liberals such as yourself read the 2nd like you do the rest of the constitution, there would be an entitlement program set up to tax the rich to provde guns for people that cannot afford them.
Precnditioned bias? Not from -this- side.

That's the trouble with you obsessed gun nuts, you make too many assumptions about things you know nothing about and justify them with meaningless rhetoric and obfuscation.

Try meeting the gist of the debate head-on next time, without the childish accusations.

ricksfolly
 
Here's a slippery slope argument from Posner:



Food for thought. It certainly exposes the hypocrisy of Scalia's jurisprudence.

The funny thing is citing a circuit judge to counter a supreme court justice when its clear that you really don't understand the position of either
 
That's the trouble with you obsessed gun nuts, you make too many assumptions about things you know nothing about and justify them with meaningless rhetoric and obfuscation.

Try meeting the gist of the debate head-on next time, without the childish accusations.

ricksfolly

Now that is hilarious coming from someone who claims that the second amendment banned guns for all but militia members

such a claim ignores

1) the concept that inalienable rights pre-exist the constitution
2) the 9th Amendment that states rights not specifically enumerated in the eight prior amendments are not denigrated
3) the Tenth Amendment that holds that powers not specifically delegated to the Federal GOvernment remain with the people and the several states
4) the fact that you cannot cite any clause in the constitution that supports the nonsense you spew on this subject-even if the second does not guarantee an individual right, where in the constitution was that right taken away

the problem with the anti gun nuts is they make up stuff to support their unconstitutional cravings
 
You could make that case for the hunter who needs to shoot game to feed his family, but definitely not for the sport in a country that is supposed to be civilized.

ricksfolly

another idiotic claim. where in the constitution is this delineation discussed?
 
That's the trouble with you obsessed gun nuts, you make too many assumptions about things you know nothing about and justify them with meaningless rhetoric and obfuscation.
Try meeting the gist of the debate head-on next time, without the childish accusations.
ricksfolly
As opposed to anti-gun loons, such as yourself, who just make stuff up and cannot support a premise to save their life.
 
Last edited:
another idiotic claim. where in the constitution is this delineation discussed?
The Eleventy-Seventh Amendment, ratified by William Wallace in 1066.
 
That's the trouble with you obsessed gun nuts, you make too many assumptions about things you know nothing about and justify them with meaningless rhetoric and obfuscation.

Try meeting the gist of the debate head-on next time, without the childish accusations.

ricksfolly

Speaking of obsessed nuts going off on things they know nothing about, what could possibly be "uncivilized" about sport shooting?
 
The funny thing is citing a circuit judge to counter a supreme court justice when its clear that you really don't understand the position of either

Even funnier is nine exalted people, selected for their intelligence and open minds to make logical decisions, playing politics.

ricksfolly
 
One of these days you're going to run out of bumper sticker slogans.
>>

Glad you brought it up... Bumper stickers and graffiti are the only words all people can relate with and consistently understand. They may not agree with them. but they definitely know what they mean.

No other form of literature can make the same claim.

ricksfolly
 
>>
Glad you brought it up... Bumper stickers and graffiti are the only words all people can relate with and consistently understand.
That certainly explains the content of your posts - but, you're doing the best you can, and that's all anyone can ask.
 
>>

If you want to make hunting a real sport, give the deer rifles...

ricksfolly

I didn't ask about hunting.

I asked about sport shooting.
 
:no:


:prof:


What the Founders of the US said about guns:


On what is the militia:

Not a single one of those quotations you cite disproved the fact that the second amendment is a conditional sentence. Ergo, the original intent of the second amendment can only be interpreted to mean that when a well-regulated militia ceases to be necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed. That's just what the sentence means.

Let's analyze your quotes, Goshin, to see exactly if they help your case:

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

These simply describe what a militia is composed of, and do not bear on the conditionality of the second amendment. Nobody is disputing the fact that the militia is composed of the people.

In fact, these quotes do you more harm that good, Goshin. The quotes above cannot reasonably be construed to include the National Guard asa type of "militia," thus they prove that the militia as the Framers understood it doesn't exist any more.


Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Considering that he was writing at a time when militias were still commonplace, I don't see how this bears on the conditionality of the second amendment whatsoever.

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, date still being sought)

I'm sorry, what was Samuel Adams's role in writing the Constitution?

Even assuming he did have a role in writing the second amendment, there is nothing in this quotation that demonstrates a right to gun ownership in the Constitution, merely that the Constitution does not preclude gun ownership.


As for the rest of your quotations, they don't really bear on the issue at all. Like I said, I don't think that cherry-picking from the writings of the founding fathers is a good way to determine what the law is, but if you are going to do that you might want to at least cherry pick quotes that actually provide support for your position.
 
Speaking of obsessed nuts going off on things they know nothing about, what could possibly be "uncivilized" about sport shooting?

He must be related to clay pigeons?
 
One of these days you're going to run out of bumper sticker slogans.

when you see nonsense like that you know you are dealing with a serious hater of hunters.
 
Even funnier is nine exalted people, selected for their intelligence and open minds to make logical decisions, playing politics.

ricksfolly

yeah, the supreme court never should have had to rule on the second amendment. sadly there are politicians whose views on an obvious right are as loony as the stuff you write on the subject and that is why we needed a ruling. for the first 150 or so years, the right was obvious and the federal government didn't try to screw around with our rights on this subject
 
Not a single one of those quotations you cite disproved the fact that the second amendment is a conditional sentence. Ergo, the original intent of the second amendment can only be interpreted to mean that when a well-regulated militia ceases to be necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed. That's just what the sentence means.

Let's analyze your quotes, Goshin, to see exactly if they help your case:



These simply describe what a militia is composed of, and do not bear on the conditionality of the second amendment. Nobody is disputing the fact that the militia is composed of the people.

In fact, these quotes do you more harm that good, Goshin. The quotes above cannot reasonably be construed to include the National Guard asa type of "militia," thus they prove that the militia as the Framers understood it doesn't exist any more.




Considering that he was writing at a time when militias were still commonplace, I don't see how this bears on the conditionality of the second amendment whatsoever.



I'm sorry, what was Samuel Adams's role in writing the Constitution?

Even assuming he did have a role in writing the second amendment, there is nothing in this quotation that demonstrates a right to gun ownership in the Constitution, merely that the Constitution does not preclude gun ownership.


As for the rest of your quotations, they don't really bear on the issue at all. Like I said, I don't think that cherry-picking from the writings of the founding fathers is a good way to determine what the law is, but if you are going to do that you might want to at least cherry pick quotes that actually provide support for your position.

this is so stupid I don't know where to start. it is not a conditional clause and you cannot find any legitimate authority for that. You claim to be a libertarian yet you play games and we all know you don't think there is an individual right for non "militia members" to own guns

I am tiring of your trolling on this subject. the contrarian games get old

there is nothing in the USC that properly allows federal regulation of small arms and the second, ninth and tenth amendments further proscribe any such regulation
 
Look -- its YOUR position and so it is up to YOU to back it up.
I've adopted the same position as Judge Posner. If you cannot refute him then you cannot refute me.

You claim tha the intent of the people involved in the 2nd that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, ones actions must be in direct relation to service in the militia.
That isn't my claim at all. You clearly haven't been reading or understanding my posts. Please re-read the thread. I have clearly stated my position is that the keep and bear clause is contingent on the militia clause. This does not mean that one must be in the militia to keep and bear, merely that the keep and bear clause is logically contingent on truth of the militia clause.

To do that, you have to quote statements from those people that support that position. If your source has those quotes, then feel free to copy and paste them, but without those quotes, your argument is unsound.
False. Please see my refutation of Goshin above for why "quotes" from the personal writings of the founding fathers are merely red herrings to this discussion.

Fact of the matter is, there are no quotes to that effect, you know it, and you're simply trying to dodge the issue.

Fact of the matter is you are the only one dodging anything. Because of your failure to address any of my or Judge Posners on arguments on their merits you have forfeited the debate. Nice talking with you, but you lose.
 
I've adopted the same position as Judge Posner. If you cannot refute him then you cannot refute me.

I cannot think of a more brazenly intellectually lazy statement than that. You're hiding behind someone else because you cannot muster your own argument. This is truly one of the very saddest posts in Debate Politics history.

You can't even successfully describe what Posner said.
 
I cannot think of a more brazenly intellectually lazy statement than that. You're hiding behind someone else because you cannot muster your own argument. This is truly one of the very saddest posts in Debate Politics history.

You can't even successfully describe what Posner said.

Its contrarian nonsense. He won't support a position or take a clear stand.

ITs funny to watch. He's anti gun but claims he supports the second amendment which he then says only protects those in the militia which he then claims is obsolete. ergo, there is no constitutional right to own anything
 
No.

Depending.

I answered "No" because it's the closest to my view - There are some restrictions that seem reasonable, such as convicted violent criminals (even if they have served their time) being disallowed from purchasing guns/other weapons.
While it is true that some of them could probably be trusted to (after serving their sentence) be good citizens, responsible gun owners, and so forth... By the same token, there are probably some completely normal-seeming people who really shouldn't have access to guns.

Until some kind of exact method of measuring/finding who might misuse weapons is discovered - even if our morals would allow us to use such - a more generalized policy is necessary.

Seeing as violent criminals have been violent in the past, it seems a good rule of thumb to prevent them from legal access to tools that can easily be used for violence.

Unless you want to determine such things on a case-by-case basis - which would take up a HELL of a lot of resources.

-----------

On a related note, I recall reading some Sci-Fi book wherein the author envisioned his version of the optimal society structure.

It was highly libertarian in nature, and one aspect of it was that there were no restrictions whatsoever on ownership of weapons - up to and including materials and construction (perhaps even sale, it wasn't clear on that) of nuclear weapons.

One sub-aspect of that was basically that, if someone who wished to commit a crime with a weapon, they would most likely run into multiple persons who would be perfectly willing to use similar weapons in self-defense. Thus rendering them unable to continue their crime spree,.

Now, this was a very simplified and (perhaps) glorified version of things, which further required multiple differences in culture of the society he imagined… As opposed to the US as it currently stands.

My take on it was that it wouldn’t work unless everyone (or the vast majority) was of similar mindset on some key matters – high among them being personal freedom and responsibility.

There are far too many people in the US (or anywhere I can think of, for that matter) who adhere to one or the other of those ideals, but not both, for any such setup to work without an initial spate of violence (as criminals kill and/or are killed).

The ideas of personal freedom and personal responsibility are still (as an idealistic version of a society) one of the attractions that libertarianism (or whatever) has for me.

But I realize that it is far from likely to occur at any point in the near (or perhaps even distant) future.

Damn, I can really spew out words when I get going….
 
Back
Top Bottom