• 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
I agree with that statement. Just don't make the mistake of reading the modern meaning of "keep and bear arms" into the second amendment. It is a term of art with a precise meaning related to military service.

no it isn't. you are wrong again. keep and bear arms was not conditioned on serving in the militia
 
There is no AND after state, only a comma, and a comma simply means a pause in a paragraph, proving that you flunked your 5th grad exam.

Here, read it again. Change the comma to AND, and you'll see what I mean.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Of course the right for people to bear arms means nothing to me as a practice, the trend is already in place, can't be stopped, and compared with all the other deaths, the ratio of murders with guns isn't all that imposing, but I do try to follow the punctuation rules.


Richard

you are wrong and this is a modification of some of your earlier nonsense such as claiming that guns were banned for those not in the militia
 
If Mr. Tushnet couldn't convince you how can I? The burden of proof is on your to refute his position, and I haven't seen that from you.

As for providing you links, I'm giving you citations, that is the best I can do. Most of my research is from books. Sorry.


Like I said, my quotation from Tushnet is the proof. But you don't have to take his word for it, just do a little research yourself. Any historian of the era will have arrived at a similar conclusion.

You're the one who is reaching with this false history you cling to, real history is low hanging fruit by comparison. You want me to write up a bibliography for you so you can see what I mean?

There are many others who disagree with his claims. Tushnet is not a definitive source. Others have stated its clearly individual. So citing people that we in the field don't find useful or authoritative is idiotic
 
Why do you make stuff up like this?

Interestingly enough, first American dictionary was written in 1798 by Samuel Johnson Jr., no relation to the more famous Dr. Samuel Johnson who wrote the first British English dictionary a half century earlier.

Black's law dictionary wasn't written until a hundred years later.

So why wasn't the American legal term of art "keep and bear arms" defined in the eighteenth century? Because there simply weren't any dictionaries to define it in.
 
Mr Tushnet doesn't trump the words of the people who wrote the Constitution, nor does Posner.

Mr. Tushnet's words explain what the constitution means, and Judge Posner's argument is sound. Since you haven't provided any actual argument against either you forfeit the point. I happily accept your de facto concession.

As for your quotations, I've already dispensed with them earlier in the thread. There is not a single one of those quotations that cannot be read to support my point as well as yours. They are, at best, hopelessly vague and at worst don't go to your point at all. It's nonsense and there is nothing there even close to law.

The Constitution says "keep and bear arms." That has a technical meaning, and nothing in your quotations disproves that.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly enough, first American dictionary was written in 1798 by Samuel Johnson Jr., no relation to the more famous Dr. Samuel Johnson who wrote the first British English dictionary a half century earlier.

Black's law dictionary wasn't written until a hundred years later.

So why wasn't the American legal term of art "keep and bear arms" defined in the eighteenth century? Because there simply weren't any dictionaries to define it in.
Then the question begs - how the hell does anyone in this time period know they even used that phrase as a "term of art", if there's no definition of it from that time period?

The only possible way is if someone defined it somewhere - it doesn't have to be a damn dictionary.
 
Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm long has been the
leading authority on the historical English right to
arms. Her works include two books published by
Harvard: Guns and Violence: The English Experience
(2002) (“G&V”), and To Keep and Bear Arms: The
Origins of an Anglo-American Right (1994) (“K&B”).
The latter was cited below, Pet. App. 21a n.8, and in
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 938 n.2 (1997)
(Thomas, J., concurring); Antonin Scalia, A Matter of
Interpretation 136-37 (1997); and Whether the
Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, Op.
Off. Legal Counsel, passim (Aug. 24, 2004) (“OLC
Opinion”), available at USDOJ: Office of Legal Counsel
opinions.htm; among other places. She has a Ph.D in
comparative history from Brandeis University, is a
Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and is
Professor of Legal History at George Mason
University School of Law


Amici therefore set out below the right to have and
use arms in English law by the time of the Founding.
Amici then show how early American authorities
claimed and extended that right, including in
interpreting the Second Amendment. The English
right was a right of individuals, not conditioned on
militia service; individuals might exercise the right
collectively, but the unquestioned core was a broadly
applicable and robust right to “keep” firearms in
one’s home for self-defense. Even the “wellrecognized
exceptions” confirmed this core right, by
focusing on the carrying, not the keeping, of weapons.
 
I cannot help but notice that Guy has flat out ignored -- refused even to acknowledge -- every single post I've made which have factually, irrefutably blown his deluded rantings out of the water. Pretended those posts weren't even there.

That is so, so, so sad.

Yet as the same time, hilarious as all hell.
 
Mr. Tushnet's words explain what the constitution means, and Judge Posner's argument is sound. Since you haven't probed any actual argument against either you forfeit the point. I happily accept your de facto concession.

As for your quotations, I've already dispensed with them earlier in the thread. There is not a single one of those quotations that cannot be read to support my point as well as yours. They are, at best, hopelessly vague and at worst don't go to your point at all. It's nonsense and there is nothing there even close to law.

The Constitution says "keep and bear arms." That has a technical meaning, and nothing in your quotations disproves that.


On the contrary, the quotes I posted, from the most authoritative sources possible, do indeed refute your "position", which is little more than a convoluted attempt to twist and squirm around the obvious: the people who WROTE the 2A clearly intended there to be an individual right to arms.

That you pretend they are vague and pointless would be laughable, if it wasn't so clearly disingenuous. Indeed, I have begun to suspect that your entire position on the 2A is disingenuous. You begin by claiming to be very pro-2A and even presenting yourself as extravagant in your support of it, but then you present specious arguments by non-authoritative sources against the individual right, ignore the clear and obvious sentiments of those who wrote the 2A, ignore the body of jurisprudence that affirms the individual right, and otherwise twist and convolute and attempt to define terms without supporting evidence of any substance, to a degree I can most politely call incredible.

When considering the way you manevuered yourself into a position of claiming 2A advocacy, then twisted around into arguing against individual 2A rights, one is tempted to bring out terms like Hegelian Dialectic.

I have no time for such games. Your points have been repeatedly and conclusively refuted; your failure to recognize this reality is not my concern.
 
Then the question begs - how the hell does anyone in this time period know they even used that phrase as a "term of art", if there's no definition of it from that time period?

The only possible way is if someone defined it somewhere - it doesn't have to be a damn dictionary.

That's a good question. The answer is that the definition is discerned by historians from the usage of the term in legal documents. Just because dictionaries didn't exist doesn't mean that words didn't have meanings. Those meanings can be ascertained by historians. Tushnet didn't just make it up, he is a top notch scholar who based his opinion of a thorough understanding the the period and the use of the term as it was used in the late eighteenth century.
 
And he continues to pretend I'm not even posting.
 
I cannot help but notice that Guy has flat out ignored -- refused even to acknowledge -- every single post I've made which have factually, irrefutably blown his deluded rantings out of the water. Pretended those posts weren't even there.

That is so, so, so sad.

Yet as the same time, hilarious as all hell.

I think we are both getting the ostrich treatment. Fine with me-when you stick your head in the sand guess what is hanging out for everyone to beat on?
 
When considering the way you manevuered yourself into a position of claiming 2A advocacy, then twisted around into arguing against individual 2A rights, one is tempted to bring out terms like Hegelian Dialectic.

Frankly, you have a very shallow understanding of what I have been arguing if this is what you think. I have stated repeatedly that I believe gun ownership rights to be fundamental, even though the original meaning of the second amendment does not create such a right. You should take the time to read my posts, it would do you a world of good.

I am not an originalist, and my whole argument is to expose the weakness of originalism as a support for gun rights. Do you care about gun rights or do you care about what the original meaning of the Constitution was? The two are in conflict.

I don't think the Founders have any bearing on how we should interpret the law, but if you do, then you cannot support the keep and bear clause as divorced from the militia clause, because zero founders even considered such and idea (your own quotes proved that quite nicely!).

Therein lies the hypocrisy of the originalism/gun-rights alliance. It is a based on a lie. If we want a secure foundation for gun ownership rights, we need to find them elsewhere besides the original meaning of the second amendment. A good place to look is the meaning modern society reads into the second. Much like Brown v. Board of Education, an interpretivist approach to the law can serve to expand civil rights, and that is how we should approach gun ownership rights.
 
Last edited:
Frankly, you have a very shallow understanding of what I have been arguing if this is what you think. I have stated repeatedly that I advocate that gun ownership rights are fundamental, even though the original meaning of the second amendment does not create such a right. You should take the time to read my posts, it would do you a world of good.

OMG this is causing me to pee myself. You have no concept of this topic, you refuse to debate those who are constantly crushing your statist BS and now you tell a guy who clearly has demonstrated he is far more learned on this subject that reading your crap would do him a world of good?

Maybe Chief Justice Roberts ought to seek Joe Biden's advice about constitutional jurisprudence as well?
 
Read the last 4 words CAREFULLY: "...shall not be infringed."

Every cottonpicking gun regulation and mandate is an infringement and is therefore unconstitutional.

I cannot possibly understand how any sane Supreme Court justice could rule otherwise.
 
Read the last 4 words CAREFULLY: "...shall not be infringed."

Every cotton-picking gun regulation and mandate is an infringement and is therefore unconstitutional.

I cannot possibly understand how any sane Supreme Court justice could rule otherwise.
The "interpretation" involved does not have anything to do with "shall not be infringed", since that is perfectly clear.

What people argue and present different interpretations of is what, precisely, is not to be infringed upon.

The two main arguments seem to be:

  1. That there is an individual right to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed upon.
  2. That there is not an individual right to keep and bear arms, but only a right to keep and bear arms if you are in "the militia", and thus restrictions on individual gun ownership do not violate the constitution.
And other less popular arguments.

I think the currently most prevalent (in terms of numbers of people who ascribe to it) argument is that the second amendment is designed to prevent any infringement on an individual right to keep and bear arms.
 
Read the last 4 words CAREFULLY: "...shall not be infringed."

Every cottonpicking gun regulation and mandate is an infringement and is therefore unconstitutional.

I cannot possibly understand how any sane Supreme Court justice could rule otherwise.

Here, read it again... You'll find that there is no AND after free state, the only way the two parts of the sentence can be joined. The coma, the way it's used here, is only a pause, not a new statement.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Frankly I couldn't care less if people are allowed to carry gun or not. If people must murder, they can always find other ways to do it.

ricksfolly
 
Here, read it again... You'll find that there is no AND after free state, the only way the two parts of the sentence can be joined. The coma, the way it's used here, is only a pause, not a new statement.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Frankly I couldn't care less if people are allowed to carry gun or not. If people must murder, they can always find other ways to do it.

ricksfolly

This argument didn't suddenly become not ridiculous since the last time you posted it.
 
Here, read it again... You'll find that there is no AND after free state, the only way the two parts of the sentence can be joined. The coma, the way it's used here, is only a pause, not a new statement.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Frankly I couldn't care less if people are allowed to carry gun or not. If people must murder, they can always find other ways to do it.

ricksfolly

your rants about this amendment are consistently loony. If laws against murder don't prevent murderers from killing people why would they obey gun laws

what part of the constitution delegates congress the power to regulate small arms?
 
I am for 2nd amendment gun rights, but I like them to be regulated like cars.

If it's easier to get a license for a car than it is to get a gun, then there's something wrong. It should be made sure that people know comprehensive gun safety specific to the weapon they want to purchase, either through a test, or if they need it, an educational course, followed by a test. Tests should both be in theory and in practice.

Also, it should be harder to get more dangerous weapons. For example, getting an assault rifle shouldn't be as easy as getting a low caliber hunting rifle for example, but I am in support of assault rifles being available, as long as they have stringent protections on who can get them. I draw the line about there. No RPGs, no nuclear weapons :p

Peace.
 
The "interpretation" involved does not have anything to do with "shall not be infringed", since that is perfectly clear.

What people argue and present different interpretations of is what, precisely, is not to be infringed upon.

The two main arguments seem to be:

  1. That there is an individual right to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed upon.
  2. That there is not an individual right to keep and bear arms, but only a right to keep and bear arms if you are in "the militia", and thus restrictions on individual gun ownership do not violate the constitution.
And other less popular arguments.

I think the currently most prevalent (in terms of numbers of people who ascribe to it) argument is that the second amendment is designed to prevent any infringement on an individual right to keep and bear arms.

It IS an individual right. It clearly says "...the right of the PEOPLE...", every individual person. America was founded upon INDIVIDUAL rights, not collective rights.
 
Here, read it again... You'll find that there is no AND after free state, the only way the two parts of the sentence can be joined. The coma, the way it's used here, is only a pause, not a new statement.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Frankly I couldn't care less if people are allowed to carry gun or not. If people must murder, they can always find other ways to do it.

ricksfolly

The amendment is a single sentence. "Shall not be infringed" applies to ANY restrictions on gun ownership or anything else related to keeping and bearing arms.
 
Here, read it again... You'll find that there is no AND after free state, the only way the two parts of the sentence can be joined. The coma, the way it's used here, is only a pause, not a new statement.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Frankly I couldn't care less if people are allowed to carry gun or not. If people must murder, they can always find other ways to do it.

ricksfolly


Wrong.....


Visual aid, imminent:


 
Back
Top Bottom