• 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!

Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

What part of “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed” is unclear?
What part of "rights are not absolute" is unclear?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

What part of "rights are not absolute" is unclear?

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Where does it say anything in the Constitution that allows for the right to be infringed, which the Second Amendment forbids from being infringed?

I say that what is explicitly written in the Constitution takes precedence over anything that you wish was written in the Constitution but is not.
 
Bull****, If I give my gun to someone I know can't legally buy it themselves and also know that they are going to use that weapon to intentionally kill someone, I'm also responsible.

what did I say? you either misread what I wrote or intentionally ignored it
 
Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

What part of "rights are not absolute" is unclear?

for the federal government to infringe or limit rights, it must have been delegated that power. Do you HONESTLY believe that the commerce clause was intended to do that?
 
Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

I say that what is explicitly written in the Constitution takes precedence over anything that you wish was written in the Constitution but is not.
H'm, let's see, how to weigh this.

On one hand, we have two centuries of jurisprudence, judged on and decided by skilled and educated legal professionals, who have spent most of their adult lives examining constitutional law, who accept that rights are not absolute.

On the other hand, we have someone who claims to be a strict constructionist (that's you, Bob) who simultaneously willing to drop the whole "militia" phrase.

Whose word am I going to take on this? I'll give you a hint. Here's Antonin Scalia, arch-conservative, in the Heller decision, which struck down numerous gun control laws:

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."
 
Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

for the federal government to infringe or limit rights, it must have been delegated that power. Do you HONESTLY believe that the commerce clause was intended to do that?

If trades or shipments from manufacturers happen across state lines, then it does fall into Federal jurisdiction. If the manufacturing and selling is all in one state, then States right should prevail.
 
MADD - Statistics According to MADD over 10K people died in 2012 from DUI accidents, so by your logic 10K people should be in jail for providing the cars they were driving.

At least 10K car salesmen and dealership owners.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

What part of "rights are not absolute" is unclear?

Rights are absolute. However, rights can be abused and thus be used in a criminal manner, thus one is responsible for one's own actions.
 
Then they should have their rights restored once they do their time. Otherwise, they shouldn't be out of prison.

Do you have the same view for pedophiles or should they remain on sexual predator lists once they leave prison?
 
Yeah they do.

"We feel like you are dangerous so you will not be able to own a gun"

In both cases a person is being deprived of a right due to an action they taken and an assumption of potential future action they may take. The primary difference is one of those rights you're fine with taking away and the other you're not.

Not being allowed to have a gun is not imprisonment. That is a real stretch of a comparison.
 
Do you have the same view for pedophiles or should they remain on sexual predator lists once they leave prison?

Yet again, not sure why this is so hard to understand. If they are a threat that they need to be put on a list, then they are a threat to society and still should be behind bars. Doesn't get much easier than that.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

H'm, let's see, how to weigh this.

On one hand, we have two centuries of jurisprudence, judged on and decided by skilled and educated legal professionals, who have spent most of their adult lives examining constitutional law, who accept that rights are not absolute.

On the other hand, we have someone who claims to be a strict constructionist (that's you, Bob) who simultaneously willing to drop the whole "militia" phrase.

Whose word am I going to take on this? I'll give you a hint. Here's Antonin Scalia, arch-conservative, in the Heller decision, which struck down numerous gun control laws:

"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."

the Supreme Court has never explained where the federal power to so limit the right comes from. not in Miller and not in Heller. The reason why is that Scalia understands that there was no such power but being a "faint hearted originalist" he is not willing to wipe away federal gun control laws

its one of the most obvious dishonesties in constitutional scholarship.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

If trades or shipments from manufacturers happen across state lines, then it does fall into Federal jurisdiction. If the manufacturing and selling is all in one state, then States right should prevail.

so if you read the language of the commerce clause-you can honestly tell me it was intended to deal with retail sales by private companies and individuals and it trumps the later penned 2A?
 
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.

You CAN buy him the present. You just cannot surprise him.
 
Not being allowed to have a gun is not imprisonment. That is a real stretch of a comparison.

I didn't say it was imprisonment. I said each was the removal of a persons right.

You basically prove my point. You view one as a significantly worse removal of a right than the other. Which is fine. However, it doesn't change the fact that yes, our laws DO absolutely remove peoples rights due to past actions and due to an assumption of potential future action. The simple difference is whether or not there's enough political will to allow for said right to be removed.

There isn't currently as it relates to indefinite imprisonment.

There is in terms of removing the ability to keep and bear arms.
 
Underage drinking is a leading contributor to death from injuries, which are the main cause of death for people under age 21. Each year, approximately 5,000 persons under the age of 21 die from causes related to underage drinking. These deaths include about 1,600 homicides and 300 suicides. Firearm homicides
•Number of deaths: 11,078
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

You excluded the entire adult population from homicides. Why? Do you think adults don't count?
 
Yet again, not sure why this is so hard to understand. If they are a threat that they need to be put on a list, then they are a threat to society and still should be behind bars. Doesn't get much easier than that.

You know you are putting forth a policy of an undefined indefinite detention policy in place of law don't you?
 
I didn't say it was imprisonment. I said each was the removal of a persons right.

You basically prove my point. You view one as a significantly worse removal of a right than the other. Which is fine. However, it doesn't change the fact that yes, our laws DO absolutely remove peoples rights due to past actions and due to an assumption of potential future action. The simple difference is whether or not there's enough political will to allow for said right to be removed.

There isn't currently as it relates to indefinite imprisonment.

There is in terms of removing the ability to keep and bear arms.

Owning a gun isn't a right. It's a privilege. Interpretation of the 2nd amendment is so flawed its insane.
 
Owning a gun isn't a right. It's a privilege. Interpretation of the 2nd amendment is so flawed its insane.

You only claim that because you do not agree with what the Second Amendment very clearly, explicitly, and unambiguously says, in the clearest and strongest language found anywhere in the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
You only think that because you do not agree with what the Second Amendment very clearly, explicitly, and unambiguously says, in the clearest and strongest language found anywhere in the Constitution.

Not even close. The framers' arguments on this made it rather clear that it isn't close to the interpretation that is portrayed today where everyone should be a standing army unto themselves.

The well regulated militias were to replace the need for a standing army as per Thomas Jefferson. That short little amendment always seems to get trimmed down to the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and completely ignore the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" part.

Then to get the constitution ratified they had to solidify the vote of Virginia where Patrick Henry demanded that southern states' slave patrols not be hindered by the federal government so that they could quell any slave uprising. Slave patrols where seen as the security for a free "state" which is why it says "a free state" and not "a free country". Because slave patrols were regulated at the state level and a "free country" in the constitution would be grounds for a emancipation movement.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:

"Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. . . .

"By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory."

"If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia."​

Big BIG difference in original intent and what is interpreted today.
 
Last edited:
Not even close. The framers' arguments on this made it rather clear that it isn't close to the interpretation that is portrayed today where everyone should be a standing army unto themselves.

The well regulated militias were to replace the need for a standing army.

If you somehow do not understand that the language of the Second Amendment clearly asserts a right (not a “privilege”) of the people, and that government is forbidden from infringing this right, then the writings of the great men who authored it are more than enough to make it clear what they meant.

You're simply wrong, period, as is anyone else who argues that government has even the faintest vestige of any authority to interfere in any way with any free American's right to keep and bear arms.
 
If you somehow do not understand that the language of the Second Amendment clearly asserts a right (not a “privilege”) of the people, and that government is forbidden from infringing this right, then the writings of the great men who authored it are more than enough to make it clear what they meant.

You're simply wrong, period, as is anyone else who argues that government has even the faintest vestige of any authority to interfere in any way with any free American's right to keep and bear arms.

I edited my post to point out the framer's argument.

as to your post... it is a right of a well regulated militia to preserve the state in place of a standing army. It is a privilege otherwise.
 
I edited my post to point out the framer's argument.

as to your post... it is a right of a well regulated militia to preserve the state in place of a standing army. It is a privilege otherwise.

That is not what the Second Amendment says, nor is it how any honest, rational person would “interpret” it.

I get that you do not believe the people should have a right to keep and bear arms; that you think it should be a privilege, and that the government should have the authority to impose “reasonable” restrictions on this privilege. But the Second Amendment clearly states otherwise, and additional writings by the great men who authored the Constitution make their intent absolutely clear.

There is no amount of wishful thinking, nor of willful dishonesty on your part, that will change what the Second Amendment says or what it means. Only another properly-ratified amendment to the Constitution can do that.
 
That is not what the Second Amendment says, nor is it how any honest, rational person would “interpret” it.

I get that you do not believe the people should have a right to keep and bear arms; that you think it should be a privilege, and that the government should have the authority to impose “reasonable” restrictions on this privilege. But the Second Amendment clearly states otherwise, and additional writings by the great men who authored the Constitution make their intent absolutely clear.

There is no amount of wishful thinking, nor of willful dishonesty on your part, that will change what the Second Amendment says or what it means. Only another properly-ratified amendment to the Constitution can do that.

So you think quoting the framers' exact arguments on the 2nd amendment is being irrational and dishonest? That's a freegin' hoot. It certainly shows that one of us that is not me, is being intellectually dishonest as hell.
 
Back
Top Bottom