• 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
Not a single one of those quotations you cite disproved the fact that the second amendment is a conditional sentence.
You havent posted ANY quotations from the people involved with the 2nd that support -your- positon.
Ergo, you have failed to prove your argument regarding the original intent of the second amendment.
 
I've adopted the same position as Judge Posner. If you cannot refute him then you cannot refute me.
Until you supply the necessary quotes from the people involved with the 2nd that support your claim as to their intent, your position regarding same remains unsound.
 
Last edited:
You havent posted ANY quotations from the people involved with the 2nd that support -your- positon.
Ergo, you have failed to prove your argument regarding the original intent of the second amendment.

You have failed to prove that original intent means jack squat today. Move along.
 
You have failed to prove that original intent means jack squat today. Move along.
:lamo
-I'm- not arguing original intent - GI is.
But, I'll be sure to pass your message along.
:lamo
 
Last edited:
You have failed to prove that original intent means jack squat today. Move along.




If it didn't mean "jack squat today" that would mean the constitution was worthless.... will you be moving along and taking your fail with you? :ssst:
 
If it didn't mean "jack squat today" that would mean the constitution was worthless.... will you be moving along and taking your fail with you? :ssst:

How exactly does that follow? The Constitution is a guideline, it is not a set of hard and fast rules that can never change. The founding fathers could not conceivably have foreseen the modern world, there are lots of things today that simply cannot be considered with their "original intent" because they couldn't have intended anything regarding them. Mindless document worship is ridiculous. It's a good starting place for basic concepts, but it is not, nor has it ever been, the end-all-be-all.
 
How exactly does that follow? The Constitution is a guideline, it is not a set of hard and fast rules that can never change.


Sure it is, otherwise we would not have an amendment process.... Fail.


The founding fathers could not conceivably have foreseen the modern world, there are lots of things today that simply cannot be considered with their "original intent" because they couldn't have intended anything regarding them.

So if the majority of the people in the US decided to eradicate via gas chambers all blue eyed people, we could re-interprate the USC to this? fail #2

Mindless document worship is ridiculous. It's a good starting place for basic concepts, but it is not, nor has it ever been, the end-all-be-all.


Wrong. It's not document worship, its belief in inalienable rights. The USC enumerates some of these rights, rights which are absolute. The beuty of this USC is that it is a hard document, not subject to the whim of current society....
 
Wrong. It's not document worship, its belief in inalienable rights. The USC enumerates some of these rights, rights which are absolute. The beuty of this USC is that it is a hard document, not subject to the whim of current society....

No such thing as inalienable rights, sorry. Even keeping to the 2nd Amendment, you can lose your "inalienable right" to bear arms quite easily. Just beome a felon. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you rights to own firearms unless you're a felon. You lose that imaginary "inalienable right". Not a felon? Try to take a gun on a plane. See how well that works. Unless you're an Air Marshall, you lose your right to "bear arms" while you're on a plane, or in fact, in most places unless you have a concealed carry license. None of those restrictions appear in the 2nd Amendment either.

Maybe you ought to stop living in your little fantasy world and come on out to reality.
 
How exactly does that follow? The Constitution is a guideline, it is not a set of hard and fast rules that can never change. The founding fathers could not conceivably have foreseen the modern world, there are lots of things today that simply cannot be considered with their "original intent" because they couldn't have intended anything regarding them. Mindless document worship is ridiculous. It's a good starting place for basic concepts, but it is not, nor has it ever been, the end-all-be-all.

Sure they can change -- exactly by the process they spell out. But pretending they mean something new with every person who reads them renders them meaningless, yes. Not much point in writing anything down if you can just make it up as you go along.
 
No such thing as inalienable rights, sorry. Even keeping to the 2nd Amendment, you can lose your "inalienable right" to bear arms quite easily. Just beome a felon. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you rights to own firearms unless you're a felon. You lose that imaginary "inalienable right". Not a felon? Try to take a gun on a plane. See how well that works. Unless you're an Air Marshall, you lose your right to "bear arms" while you're on a plane, or in fact, in most places unless you have a concealed carry license. None of those restrictions appear in the 2nd Amendment either.


The fact that rights are denied by statists like you does not mean that these are not rights we free people should have. :shrug:


Maybe you ought to stop living in your little fantasy world and come on out to reality.


Maybe you should whine more about how evil the USC is and bloviate some more about your inane statist positions. :thumbs:
 
Sure they can change -- exactly by the process they spell out. But pretending they mean something new with every person who reads them renders them meaningless, yes. Not much point in writing anything down if you can just make it up as you go along.

I'm not saying new with every person, but it's clear that they are not clear and unambiguous, that's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as new situations come up. Like
I said, it's a guideline, it's not a hard and fast rule. People need to deal with that.
 
I'm not saying new with every person, but it's clear that they are not clear and unambiguous, that's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as new situations come up. Like
I said, it's a guideline, it's not a hard and fast rule. People need to deal with that.




This is called judicial activism and is antithesis to our representative republic.
 
Just beome a felon. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you rights to own firearms unless you're a felon.
It doesn't "give" you any right regardless, it states that the right, which is already retained, may not be taken away without due process by law. Felons have received their due process.

Try to take a gun on a plane. See how well that works. Unless you're an Air Marshall, you lose your right to "bear arms" while you're on a plane, or in fact, in most places unless you have a concealed carry license. None of those restrictions appear in the 2nd Amendment either.

If a private company or a citizen specifies that weapons are not allowed on their property, that is not the federal government infringing on an individual's 2nd amendment right. No one is forced to patronize air transport or go into bars that ban weapons. It is a choice and the rules the property owner sets for their establishments should be respected. You're forgetting that the amendments of the bill of rights don't protect you from other people and they do not grant anything... They prevent congress from establishing laws that violate your rights and personal freedoms. They restrain the government, not private property owners.
 
I'm not saying new with every person, but it's clear that they are not clear and unambiguous, that's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as new situations come up. Like
I said, it's a guideline, it's not a hard and fast rule. People need to deal with that.

The proper role of the courts is to apply the law to new fact patterns, not apply the fact patterns and change the law to fit. If the law needs changing, there are avenues for that.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
The fact that rights are denied by statists like you does not mean that these are not rights we free people should have.

First off, I'm not a statist, I'm a realist. I don't deny that rights exist, I just deny the magical, ethereal rights that you seem to believe in. Rights come from society. They have no meaning outside of society. There are some rights that you have that come from the nation in which you live. There are some which come from your state. There are some that come from your town or city. I'm sure that you even have some, even though they're probably not written down anywhere, that only apply within your house and with your family. When you go from one place to another, your collective set of rights changes. You can't go to someone else's house and demand that you have "rights" that only apply at your place. You can't go to another country and demand that your rights from home necessarily apply. They'll laugh at you, just before they either put you in prison or shoot you.

I always find it absurd that the people who claim there are these magical rights that always exist also demand that it's the rights in their own country that are correct. When you get indocrtinated into them, they always seem correct, especially to people who haven't bothered to actually think about the situation rationally.

Why don't you give it a shot?
 
First off, I'm not a statist, I'm a realist. I don't deny that rights exist, I just deny the magical, ethereal rights that you seem to believe in. Rights come from society. They have no meaning outside of society. There are some rights that you have that come from the nation in which you live. There are some which come from your state. There are some that come from your town or city. I'm sure that you even have some, even though they're probably not written down anywhere, that only apply within your house and with your family. When you go from one place to another, your collective set of rights changes. You can't go to someone else's house and demand that you have "rights" that only apply at your place. You can't go to another country and demand that your rights from home necessarily apply. They'll laugh at you, just before they either put you in prison or shoot you.

I always find it absurd that the people who claim there are these magical rights that always exist also demand that it's the rights in their own country that are correct. When you get indocrtinated into them, they always seem correct, especially to people who haven't bothered to actually think about the situation rationally.

Why don't you give it a shot?




You bore me with your vague nonsensical opining. What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment, and the USC?
 
How exactly does that follow? The Constitution is a guideline, it is not a set of hard and fast rules that can never change.
No... The Constitution is a set of hard and fast rules that can change.
Of course, there's a procedure for that change; if you want to change it you use that procedure.

Fact of the matter is, the Constitution protects a fundamental right of the people from infringement. Potential infringements to fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny.
You don't get to ignore those things just because you think its a good idea.
 
Last edited:
No such thing as inalienable rights, sorry.
You say, until one of yours is threatened.

Even keeping to the 2nd Amendment, you can lose your "inalienable right" to bear arms quite easily.
No one argues against due process being able to take people rights. The difference, of course, is that you lose your right because of someting you have done.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't give you rights to own firearms unless you're a felon.
The 2A doesnt give you any rights, period.
 
I'm not saying new with every person, but it's clear that they are not clear and unambiguous, that's why we have a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution as new situations come up.
Where, exactly, do you think "strict scrutiny' comes from?
 
I do not think that this debate can be either way. The Constitution is simply old old, too vague, and too open to someones interpretation.
Of course, restrictions must be, to the dismay of the gun-lovers.
 
I do not think that this debate can be either way. The Constitution is simply old old, too vague, and too open to someones interpretation.
Of course, restrictions must be, to the dismay of the gun-lovers.





Feel free to move to cuba any time comrade. :shrug:
 
I do not think that this debate can be either way. The Constitution is simply old old, too vague, and too open to someones interpretation.
Of course, restrictions must be, to the dismay of the gun-lovers.

Age has nothing to do with it.

It's general, but that's not the same thing as "vague."

It's not as open to interpretation as many claim it is.
 
I do not think that this debate can be either way. The Constitution is simply old old, too vague, and too open to someones interpretation.
Of course, restrictions must be, to the dismay of the gun-lovers.

Please tell me you dont actually believe this.
 
Please tell me you dont actually believe this.
Of course he does. The only way leftists can get anything does is to exploit the "too old, too vague, and too open to someones interpretation: nature of the Constitution.
 
So the Constitution is NOT open to interpretation?
 
Back
Top Bottom