niftydrifty

...said the man who proposed a debate to which there is only one side. I'm amassing evidence as we speak, and it ain't lookin' good for you, mister.

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

M14 Shooter

And as complains the man who said I could pick whatever subject I wanted and that he'd argue the liberal position against it.

If there is only "one side" to the argument, maybe you could explain a current poll that indicates that there are a number of differing opinions as to what sort of weapons are protected by the 2nd.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...amendment.html (What weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment?)

That you dont happen to share any of these differing opinion is, well, your problem.

Amassing evidence for what? An opening statement?
You dont present evidence in an opening statement.

__________________
Any time someone says there should be a prior restraint on gun ownership, ask them what they think about a person's right to talk to known al Qaeda operatives without fear of being listened in on.

niftydrifty

that is what I intend to do. sounds like you don't know what that position is.

reading comprehension. nukes are not firearms. I plan to argue on behalf of my own opinions and on behalf of the opinions of most Liberals, as agreed. you picked a lame topic, guy. I tried to warn you. re-read this thread now with your new found knowledge and now perhaps it'll make more sense.

irrelevant.

you just love to make assumptions, don'tchya? I say sumpin, so you assume why or what for.

M14 Shooter

Yes.

And dont forget that you're going to have to show that the position you stake out is the liberal position - with "liberal" being in the Modern American context.

And you havent a prayer in that.

niftydrifty

you sound so certain...LMAO!

M14 Shooter

Yep.

Anyway, I have posted my opening statement. Good luck.

Iriemon

I could not make a post in the M14 v Nifty private debate thread since it was locked.

But I dispute the contention that there is a general consensus that the second amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own guns.

In fact, there is a sound argument that the second amendment did not guarantee everyone the individual right to own weapons (do you think that congress in 1791 would really pass a law that gave blacks the constitutional right to own weapons?) but that what the second amendment guaranteed was the right keep and bear arms pursuant to a "well regulated militia".

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.

And all but 2 of the 11 federal appellate circuits (as well as numerous lower court decisions) have followed this interpretation in one form or another and held there is no absolute right of an individual to own guns.

I'm not going to repeat the debate on it here, if anyone is interested in the arguments they were debated in this thread, starting at post #48.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...-2007-a-5.html (H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007)

__________________
Matthew 5:9

niftydrifty

Iriemon, I've read your opinions and you make good points. but what do most people believe? that's what I'm saying. If most Republicans and most Democrats say that the second protects an individual's right to own guns, then there's a consensus. It's a fact. Polls back up my statements.

If you truly dispute the contention that there is a general consensus that the second amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own guns, then demonstrate how there is not a majority opinion on the issue. show me the public opinion polls. arguing against the meaning of the words doesn't do that.

just FYI, here are links of interest.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Literary Analysis

Iriemon

I don't know what the polls are, Nifty, and I don't particularly care, really. You may be right in that most folks believe there is such a right. I do believe, however (correct me if you think I am wrong) that a majority of people favor restrictions on gun ownership -- a position which is inconsistent with the concept that the constitution guarantees the right to own guns.

If there was a constitutional right to own guns then the many gun restriction and regulation laws around the country would have been struck down. The vast majority of court decisions have held there is no constitutional right for individuals to own guns. However, the Supreme Court had never decided the issue.

Whether it is liberal or conservative, however, there is definitely a line of thought (representing the vast majority of legal decisions) that the second amendment was not made to guarantee blacks and crazy folks could own guns, but that the right to keep and bear them was necessary for a well regulated militia. A "well-regulated" militia would ensure that the possession of the guns was limited to those who were responsible and desirable (ie no blacks) used in a responsible manner.

As for the merits of my contention as to this argument, please review the thread I cited for the arguments made, and after reading that, if you have any additional or new points or arguments, I'll gladly consider them. I don't have the time or inclination to regurgitate that entire thread.

niftydrifty

I've reviewed the thread and found it interesting.

If you familiarized yourself with all the public opinion polls regarding the second amendment, you'd find that most people, Conservatives and Liberals alike, have contradictory opinions on the issue, which are not reconcilable.

Part of my whole deal here is simply to point out (to M14 Shooter) that it is impossible to characterize the debate as pro-gun-right and anti-gun-left. This is impossible to do in light of the facts. I tried to warn him but he wouldn't accept it.

Some people just go thru life with their hands over their eyes and ears, I guess.