• 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!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

Guy Incognito said:
Ok, you got me there. Heller was bad originalism though, even if it didn't expand anything. And McDonald was a huge expansion of federal power at the expense of states rights.
Click to expand...

no more than the 14th was. Once the 14th amendment was ratified, McDonald should never have been necessary
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, you're right....A few Lager's last night...heh, heh....However, there is no way to interpret the constitution other than through original intent, unless you have no regard for it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Haha, I hear ya, j-mac, it's easy enough to get stuff like that mixed up under normal conditions:)

I'd say that Brown is a good example of what's wrong with originalism, though. If the Court had always to embraced originalism, Plessy wouldn't have been overturned by Brown. There's nothing in the Constitution that says what philosophy the Court has employ to determine its meaning. Indeed, the Court isn't even granted its power as the final word on Constitutional issues by the Constitution, this power comes from the interpretivist philosophy employed by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. If you really wanted to have law in this country that reflected the "original" meaning of the Constitution, it would mean radically changing the law in almost every aspect, and in a way that stare decisis would not permit.
 
TurtleDude said:
no more than the 14th was. Once the 14th amendment was ratified, McDonald should never have been necessary
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the right-wing should fight interpretivist fire with fire? There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't originalism, just "reverse interpretivism."
 
Guy Incognito said:
So you're saying that the right-wing should fight interpretivist fire with fire? There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't originalism, just "reverse interpretivism."
Click to expand...

the fourteenth amendment was a properly ratified amendment to the constitution passed to prevent the racists in the south from denying the freedmen basic and fundamental liberties. amendment is a proper way to change the constitution.
 
TurtleDude said:
amendment is a proper way to change the constitution.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's neither here nor there. On the original intent of the 14th Amendment, it was not understood to incorporate the first or second amendments as against the states. It takes an interpretivist like Scalia in McDonald to reach that conclusion.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If you'd like to demonstrate the appeal to popularity logical fallacy, go ahead.
Click to expand...

Not all episodes where people vote on something or respond to a poll is an "appeal to popularity."

But I can see how a loser would think it is or claim that it is.
 
drz-400 said:
"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."

necessary is stated right in the 2nd amendment.

since you are an expert, what does a civilian use a light machine gun for other than maybe extremely expensive target practice? I have no idea why supresive fire would be needed in a self-defense or hunting situtation.
Click to expand...

Chuz Life said:
The "security of a free state" is a cause which is exponentially greater than the mere right of one person to defend him or herself.

If the right to keep and bear arms was solely for an individual's right to defend themself,.... there would have been no need to specifically mention the "militia."
Click to expand...

drz-400 said:
Ok, well we have a malitia, and its known as the state patrol and national gaurd. They all require training, aka they are well regulated. Why should we not require the same of every citizen if they want to use the same guns as the military.
Click to expand...

Chuz Life said:
It seems you have a problem appreciating the composition of a Militia and what their purpose is.

Indiana State Constitution; Article 12, section 1;

"Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law."

Emphasis mine.

Other States and codes have similar definitions.
Click to expand...

drz-400 said:
So what does that prove? Everyone over 17 can be part of a state malitia.
Click to expand...

Chuz Life said:
Militia.

M-I-litia.

And what it proves is the fact that the right to keep and bear arms "for the security of a free State" is greater than the mere right for each and every citizen to defend themself individually.
Click to expand...

drz-400 said:
Chuz, I gotta ask you though, if this were true why did the court just extend the second amendment to be encorporated into the bill of rights via the 14th amendment. To me it would seem you have this backwards.
Click to expand...

The first tem Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are already known as the "Bill of Rights."

The court merely recognized the 2nd. Amendment. There was no need to use the 14th to extend it,... as (being number 2 of 10) it was already there.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Sure, but that's neither here nor there. On the original intent of the 14th Amendment, it was not understood to incorporate the first or second amendments as against the states. It takes an interpretivist like Scalia in McDonald to reach that conclusion.
Click to expand...

really? you didn't read the comments at that time about how the remnants of the Confederacy were disarming the freedmen? You might read Associate Justice Thomas's comments to that fact in the McDonald decision.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Scalia is often in the awkward position where he has to reconcile his originalism in order to expedite a right-wing end, and Heller and McDonald are just continuing the same sort of interpretive jurisprudence, expanding the second amendment...
Click to expand...
Except, of course, that you cannot show that your premise for this statement is sound, as previously noted.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
And your continued appeal to ignorance logical fallacy demonstrates that you have no substance to present that actually refutes my position. Your continued refusal to offer any evidence just shows your weakness. Come on Goobie, instead of falling on lack of logic, produce SOMETHING that proves your position.
Click to expand...
There's no appeal to ignorance here, there's a request for you to provide a shred of real-world evidence to back up your cloam.
Your continued refusal to do so, and your silly attempts to explain away your need to do so, illustrates that you understand the absurdity of your position.

Be honest for a moment: if you were right, dont you think -someone- would have argued it in court and a court, somewhere, woudl have upheld the argument.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
There's no appeal to ignorance here, there's a request for you to provide a shred of real-world evidence to back up your cloam.
Your continued refusal to do so, and your silly attempts to explain away your need to do so, illustrates that you understand the absurdity of your position.

Be honest for a moment: if you were right, dont you think -someone- would have argued it in court and a court, somewhere, woudl have upheld the argument.
Click to expand...

Very good the good ole "if" argument. If puff the magic dragon had a condominium he would not have to live in Honah- lee.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Very good the good ole "if" argument. If puff the magic dragon had a condominium he would not have to live in Honah- lee.
Click to expand...

would his breath require a Class III tax stamp?
 
Okay, I'm a gun nut, and even I'm tired of this thread now.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
I agree with CC. At least CC never resorts to whiny insults while debating. I keep reading about "I don't feed trolls" and **** like that here. I don't believe I have ever seen as many personal insults on a thread as this one.

CC never abuses his power as a mod in a debate. He uses his brilliant mind and destroys his opponents with logic and clarity instead of personal insults.
Click to expand...

lol asskisser.
 
Chuz Life said:
Not all episodes where people vote on something or respond to a poll is an "appeal to popularity."

But I can see how a loser would think it is or claim that it is.
Click to expand...

In this case, it would. I can see how a loser would want to have a vote on something that he's lost on, though.
 
Goobieman said:
There's no appeal to ignorance here, there's a request for you to provide a shred of real-world evidence to back up your cloam.
Your continued refusal to do so, and your silly attempts to explain away your need to do so, illustrates that you understand the absurdity of your position.
Click to expand...

No, of course it is an appeal to ignorance. Your continued demonstration of this logical fallacy, and inablity to debate my position with any of your own logic or information, shows that your position is not viable. Now, you can continue to press this logical fallacy, but it just shows that you can't debate this issue.

Be honest for a moment: if you were right, dont you think -someone- would have argued it in court and a court, somewhere, woudl have upheld the argument.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't matter if they had or not. If they did, you would be wrong. If they did not, that doesn't mean I would not be right. That is why your position is just the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy. Now, if you actually want to debate the issue, be my guest.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Wore you out, didn't I?
Click to expand...


When someone takes a position that is clearly lacking in substance, and holds to it despite plentiful evidence to the contrary, sensible people eventually get tired of beating their head against a brick wall. :mrgreen:

Doesn't make you right.
 
Goshin said:
When someone takes a position that is clearly lacking in substance, and holds to it despite plentiful evidence to the contrary, sensible people eventually get tired of beating their head against a brick wall. :mrgreen:

Doesn't make you right.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you forget. CC is da judge here and his gavel has landed.:smash:
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
Yes, but you forget. CC is da judge here and his gavel has landed.:smash:
Click to expand...

fortunately, CC doesn't abuse power like that

Many boards I have been on-when you crush a mod, they ban you. A board I once was a mod on was owned by a cowardly schmuck and he got cyber-castrated by a lady poster and he then banned her. I unsubscribed immediately. Fortunately, I haven't seen that sort of abuse here
 
TurtleDude said:
King Arthur-What are you going to do-bleed on me?
The Black Knight-I'm invincible
King Arthur-You're Loony!
Click to expand...

Turtle, the Black Knight in this situation is you. Despite never advancing a single argument based on fact, nor being able to defeat a single fact-based argument of CC's, you continue to claim victory. It amazes me how intelligent people can be in such deep denial in the face of facts and argument that undermine their worldview, but I suppose it shouldn't. I mean, I understand where you're coming from, you can't give up absolute gun rights and you can't give up orginalism, so in the face of incontrovertible facts that the two are incompatible, I guess it's either denial or head asplode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom