• 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!

Analyzing Heller v. D.C. 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

NotreDame said:
Right now, I am inclined to address Joe's post. The point is, however, the right to bear arms existed in the common law, the common law preceded federal and state constitutions, and the common law was practiced in the colonies and states. I have given you enough information to perform a Google search. Otherwise, I will provide you with the links later.
Click to expand...

that fact remains, its a dilatory diversion. there is no reasonable doubt or even somewhat honest debate over whether the founders both believed in, and desired to incorporate, natural rights into the law of the land. The silly assertions that these rights "do not exist" have no relevance in this discussion. All that matters is what does the 2A (and Sec 8 ) say and once someone actually admits (which the anti gun corner will not because it destroys all their stupid arguments) that the founders believed in and desired to recognize natural rights, the only possible interpretation of why they said what they said in the USC and BoR is that of one that prevents and never allowed federal gun control
 
Joe Steel said:
It is.

In his law review article, Volokh says "(t)o the extent the operative clause is ambiguous, the justification clause may inform our interpretation of it ..." He's correct in that statement but he goes on to say "... but the justification clause can't take away what the operative clause provides." That's not the case with the Second Amendment because the ambiguity of the operative clause is overwhelming to the point of making it meaningless without the justification clause.

Volokh should have done the honorable thing. He should have protested Scalia's abuse of the principle Volokh stated.
Click to expand...

First, there isn't any "overwhelming" ambiguity in the "operative clause" of the 2nd Amendment The operative clause reads as, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is no ambiguity in the operative clause, as your argument erroneously assumes. The operative clause is very clear about what it is saying. The operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is as clear as the operative clauses of other state provisions in existence at or near the time the Bill of Rights/2nd Amendment was composed and ratified.

Rhode Island's 1842 constitution, its first, provides

that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed​

The operative clause is in italics above. The operative clause is not ambiguous and is as clear in what it is saying as the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment.

Furthermore, using the phrase "operative clause" and "justification clause" defeats your own argument! It is precisely and exactly because the 2nd Amendment has two provisions, a justification clause (which does not express any right at all) and an operative clause (which does express the right), which led to the individual right to bear arms because of the operative clause. Hence, your attempt to rebut the argument with the argument's own mechanics of a justification clause (which expresses no right at all) and an operative clause (which does express the right) makes no sense.

Volokh should have done the honorable thing. He should have protested Scalia's abuse of the principle Volokh stated.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Volokh reached the same conclusion as Scalia, which was the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms! Volokh reaches the conclusion of an individual right to bear arms because the 2nd Amendment has two clauses, the justification clause and the operative clause, with the latter expressing the right, in this instance a right to bear arms.
 
haymarket said:
you have stated your belief before. No its evidence time. Prove it. I know the right to bear arms comes from the Second Amendment because I can see it, I can read it and it tells me so.

The US Constitution - Amendment II



Now its your turn.
Click to expand...

again no law grants any rights, the Constitution only recognizes rights from our humanity, and places a restriction on the federal government, via the 2nd not to create any law which would violate them.
 
Joe Steel said:
The Tenth Amendment's distribution of power is unclear and ambiguous but leads ultimately to the People, who are sovereign. They may direct their creatures, the United States and the States, to do their will as they see fit.
Click to expand...

wrong.... its very clear
 
TurtleDude said:
why do you continue to try to disrupt with this silly question.
Click to expand...
I could personally not care less about natural rights or who believes in them. I care no more about it than I do about people who want to believe in God or gods or faeries or spirits or elves or angels. people can exercise their FAITH and believe in anything they want to believe in.

I only get involved when somebody comes along and pretend to use that leap of faith to tell me that is where my rights come from.

So I am happy to never mention natural rights again in any post as long as I am here. Just as long as nobody insults the reality that rights come from people demanding a certain behavior be protected by government and then exerting enough power over government to make it do just that.

Do e have a deal?
 
NotreDame said:
Right now, I am inclined to address Joe's post. The point is, however, the right to bear arms existed in the common law, the common law preceded federal and state constitutions, and the common law was practiced in the colonies and states. I have given you enough information to perform a Google search. Otherwise, I will provide you with the links later.
Click to expand...


Can you link to these pre-existing rights and where I can find them?
 
ernst barkmann said:
again no law grants any rights, the Constitution only recognizes rights from our humanity, and places a restriction on the federal government, via the 2nd not to create any law which would violate them.
Click to expand...

the only thing that gives us our rights is the law that we force as people upon government. Humanity was humanity for tens of thousands of years and rights were non-existant. Lets not be coy o rclever about that. Your so called humanity gives you nothing except life.
 
haymarket said:
the only thing that gives us our rights is the law that we force as people upon government. Humanity was humanity for tens of thousands of years and rights were non-existant. Lets not be coy o rclever about that. Your so called humanity gives you nothing except life.
Click to expand...

wrong, law only secures a right, it does not grant it.

wrong, people were engaging in commerce which is a right, before governments were ever instituted.
 
haymarket said:
Excuse - I have no idea why I need an excuse. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

really?...... lets refresh your memory.


haymarket said:
I know the right to bear arms comes from the Second Amendment because I can see it, I can read it and it tells me so
Click to expand...


what is your excuse for the 10th amendment? ................."I can see it, I can read it and it tells me so"

how is it you cannot on the 10th............. see it?...........read it?........ and tell you so?
 
ernst barkmann said:
wrong, law only secures a right, it does not grant it.

wrong, people were engaging in commerce which is a right, before governments were ever instituted.
Click to expand...

So what then does grant our rights?

Oh wait - mythical gods in the ether dispensing out our rights like so much candy to costumed Halloween toddlers.

Got it. :doh:roll::lamo

I have no idea what your second statement about commerce has to do with anything being discussed.
 
ernst barkmann said:
really?...... lets refresh your memory.





what is your excuse for the 10th amendment? ................."I can see it, I can read it and it tells me so"

how is it you cannot on the 10th............. see it?...........read it?........ and tell you so?
Click to expand...

I don't see any rights granted to me from the 10th Amendment. Do you see any rights granted to you in the 10th Amendment?
 
haymarket said:
I don't see any rights granted to me from the 10th Amendment. Do you see any rights granted to you in the 10th Amendment?
Click to expand...

does not matter to the point i raised...its law and you act as if you dont........... see it, ............read it, ...........and dont want to follow it!
 
ernst barkmann said:
does not matter to the point i raised...its law and you act as if you dont........... see it, ............read it, ...........and dont want to follow it!
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about ............ yet again. This time try to use more words and make an argument which has a beginning a middle and an end.
 
haymarket said:
So what then does grant our rights?

Oh wait - mythical gods in the ether dispensing out our rights like so much candy to costumed Halloween toddlers.

Got it. :doh:roll::lamo

I have no idea what your second statement about commerce has to do with anything being discussed.
Click to expand...




nothing grants you are right...nothing, ..............there are no laws granting you a right, ............their are laws granting you privileges under constitutional law.


what are lost again?
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what you are talking about ............ yet again. This time try to use more words and make an argument which has a beginning a middle and an end.
Click to expand...

here so you can understand.

does not matter to the point i raised...its law [10th] and you act as if you dont........... see it, ............read it, ...........and dont want to follow it!
 
ernst barkmann said:
nothing grants you are right...nothing, ..............there are no laws granting you a right, ............their are laws granting you privileges under constitutional law.


what are lost again?
Click to expand...

so what does grant us our rights if not the Constitution?
 
haymarket said:
I really have no idea what you are getting at. Heres an idea. Have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener.

or watch this

Planes, Trains & Automobiles (8/10) Movie CLIP - Chatty Cathy (1987) HD - YouTube
Click to expand...

you dont know becuase you dont want to......your using again one of your ESCAPE statements.

Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
I know the right to bear arms comes from the Second Amendment because....... I can see it, ........I can read it .........and it tells me so

if the 2nd can be seen by you, read by you, and its tells you so.....how is it the 10th ...is not seen by you,......... read by you, .............and tells you so?
 
haymarket said:
so what does grant us our rights if not the Constitution?
Click to expand...

rights are not granted anywhere..NO PERSON OR ENTITY IS SUPERIOR TO YOU, TO GRANT YOU A RIGHT...laws are created to secure the rights that come from your humanity.

laws are created for the purpose , of when 1 person infringes on the rights of another...........if no person ever infringed upon the rights of another person, we would not need any government at all.

you have many many many rights.........those not enumerated by the constitution, or recognized by the court...ie..privacy....fall under the 9th amendment.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you dont know becuase you dont want to......your using again one of your ESCAPE statements.

Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
I know the right to bear arms comes from the Second Amendment because....... I can see it, ........I can read it .........and it tells me so

if the 2nd can be seen by you, read by you, and its tells you so.....how is it the 10th ...is not seen by you,......... read by you, .............and tells you so?
Click to expand...

I read it. I see it. I still do not understand what your point is - if you have a point - about the tenth amendment since you refuse to clearly state it.

Watch that clip I provided for you and take its advice - HAVE A POINT.
 
ernst barkmann said:
rights are not granted anywhere..NO PERSON OR ENTITY IS SUPERIOR TO YOU, TO GRANT YOU A RIGHT...laws are created to secure the rights that come from your humanity.
Click to expand...

Our humanity gives us rights :doh:shock: !?!?!?!? What does that mean?
 
haymarket said:
I read it. I see it. I still do not understand what your point is - if you have a point - about the tenth amendment since you refuse to clearly state it.
Click to expand...

no.... you dont want to see it... read it, and follow it........if you had your way, you would removed the 10th amendment.

because you cannot stand the idea of state powers as compared to federal powers, ...with the states being many, while federal being few.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom