• 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

The trouble is that is isn't clear. It's actually very vague. There is a reason it took over two hundred years for the individual right to bear arms to come into existence. It's because reasonable people can disagree.
No... its becauise the individual right was never questioned until the mid-20th century

A much better historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that it protects the collective right to bear arms
Please read the historucal arguments made by the SCotUS in support of their individual rights rulings and show how they are wrong.

I have no problem with an individual right to keep and bear arms. But I do have a problem with hypocritical Justices who claim to want to follow the "original meaning" if the Constitution, but make decision like this that are flagrantly activist.
This is only true f you can show that the original intent of the people that wrote the 2nd was to protect a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right.
This, you cannot show, and thus, your statement is not true.
 
No... its becauise the individual right was never questioned until the mid-20th century
Wrong! Try again.

Please read the historucal arguments made by the SCotUS in support of their individual rights rulings and show how they are wrong.

Happily, I don't have to. Judge Richard Posner, one of this country's leading conservative legal theorists did it for me:

Judge Posner said:
The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property. It is doubtful that the amendment could even be thought to require that members of state militias be allowed to keep weapons in their homes, since that would reduce the militias’ effectiveness. Suppose part of a state’s militia was engaged in combat and needed additional weaponry. Would the militia’s commander have to collect the weapons from the homes of militiamen who had not been mobilized, as opposed to obtaining them from a storage facility? Since the purpose of the Second Amendment, judging from its language and background, was to assure the effectiveness of state militias, an interpretation that undermined their effectiveness by preventing states from making efficient arrangements for the storage and distribution of military weapons would not make sense.
The Court evaded the issue in Heller by cutting loose the Second Amendment from any concern with state militias (the “National Guard,” as they are now called). The majority opinion acknowledges that allowing people to keep guns in their homes cannot help the militias, because modern military weapons are not appropriate for home defense (most of them are too dangerous), and anyway the opinion says that the only weapons the Second Amendment entitles people to possess are ones that are not “highly unusual in society at large.” Modern military weapons are highly unusual in society at large. By creating a privilege to own guns of no interest to a militia, the Court decoupled the amendment’s two clauses. from Richard Posner, In Defense of Looseness.

The reason why you are so very very wrong about this Goobie, is that the 2nd Amendment's original intent is not to protect an individual right, both on its face and in its history. I would love it if that was the case, but it ain't so. The fact that Scalia and company cling to this nonsense idea of originalism is the problem, I'd prefer it if they were honest enough to just admit that they are making new law from the bench.
 
Last edited:
California requires a fingerprint to purchase certain types of ammo.-- Chicago should implement that.

Why should our 4th amendment rights be curtailed in order to exercise our 2nd amendment rights?
 
Why should our 4th amendment rights be curtailed in order to exercise our 2nd amendment rights?

They're not being curtailed if the search or seizure is "reasonable." You think documenting the ownership of a firearm is unreasonable?
 
The trouble is that is isn't clear. It's actually very vague.

Actually it is pretty clear.Arms refers to weapons. Infringe means to encroach upon a way that violates the law or the rights of another. So shall not infringe at the end of the 2nd amendment means the government has no business taking away 2nd amendment rights from the people. Only a liar seeking to restrict the 2nd amendment and to take arms away from people says it isn't clear.


There is a reason it took over two hundred years for the individual right to bear arms to come into existence.

It did not take 200 years to come into existence.It was written in 1791. Its scumbags blatantly misinterpreting the constitution that does not recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms.


It's because reasonable people can disagree.
Reasonable people do disagree. However lying about the 2nd amendment being vague and how it doesn't apply to individuals is just straight up lying. Therefore not reasonable.

A much better historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that it protects the collective right to bear arms. In order to provide for an effective militia, it is entirely reasonable to have laws that restrict personal gun ownership, for instance what if the state militia required all guns be kept in a militia storage facility for better access in time of war?


I have no problem with an individual right to keep and bear arms. But I do have a problem with hypocritical Justices who claim to want to follow the "original meaning" if the Constitution, but make decision like this that are flagrantly activist. If you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a living and growing thing, that's great. But Scalia, Thomas, Alito, they're all violating their expressed judicial philosophy in this and the DC v. Heller decision. It's hypocrisy plain and simple.

More BS by the anti-2nd amendment crowd. The right to keep and bear arms is not a collective right nor has it ever been, which is why it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to keep ad bear arms.The only thing the SC did was reaffirm the right to keep and bear arms, basically they just actually read the constitution.
 
They're not being curtailed if the search or seizure is "reasonable." You think documenting the ownership of a firearm is unreasonable?

I think the exercising of a right is not enough to warrant a "reasonable" search. Should you be fingerprinted for the friends you hang out with? Maybe for running your mouth? Maybe if you go to a particular church? How about it, Mr. Exercising-a-right-is-enough-to-constitute-reasonable-search?
 
Reakky? Show where, before the mid 20th centuryt, that the right to keep and bear arms was meaningfully held as a collective right to the exclusion of the individual right.

Happily, I don't have to. Judge Richard Posner, one of this country's leading conservative legal theorists did it for me:
This isnt a rebuttal or a refutation of the argument made by the SCotUS, this is an unsupported optinion piece.
Try again.

The reason why you are so very very wrong about this Goobie, is that the 2nd Amendment's original intent is not to protect an individual right, both on its face and in its history.
If this were true, then you could actually show this to be the case, with ease.
So, get busy showing that the original intent of the people that wrote the 2nd was to protect a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right.
 
Last edited:
They're not being curtailed if the search or seizure is "reasonable." You think documenting the ownership of a firearm is unreasonable?
It doesnt pass a test of strict scrutiny, so not only is it 'unreasoable'. it is unconstitutional.
 
Actually it is pretty clear.Arms refers to weapons. Infringe means to encroach upon a way that violates the law or the rights of another. So shall not infringe at the end of the 2nd amendment means the government has no business taking away 2nd amendment rights from the people. Only a liar seeking to restrict the 2nd amendment and to take arms away from people says it isn't clear.

Well, you're obviously wrong because I am neither a liar not trying to restrict the Second Amendment. I am glad to see it broadened by activists Justices, and I am as happy with the outcome of Heller as a with the out come of Brown v. Board of Education. Right should gradually be expanded over time and the Constitution should be a living document. However, if you espouse the idea that the Consitution is "dead" and we should look only to the original intent, it is simply dishonest to try to read an individual right to bear arms into the Second amendment, when only a collective right is present or was intended by the framers.

It did not take 200 years to come into existence.It was written in 1791. Its scumbags blatantly misinterpreting the constitution that does not recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The only one misinterpreting the Constitution here is you, my friend. Why resort to ad hominem attacks? This is really a question of history, and I am just trying to be honest about it. If you are interested in an individual right to bear arms, then we're on the same side here. But how do we go about it? N ot by looking to history, that does us no favors. We need to look to how society has changed, and how interpretations of the Second Amendment have grown over time. That is implicit in the Heller decision, even if it is rooted in bad history and shoddy legal philosophy.

Reasonable people do disagree. However lying about the 2nd amendment being vague and how it doesn't apply to individuals is just straight up lying. Therefore not reasonable.

I am not lying, and I do not think you are, either. One of us is mistaken, though, and I haven't see you provide any compelling historical information on how the Second Amendment ought to be interpreted. Tell me, if the second amendment was not intended as collective, what are we to make of the militia clause? Is it just fluff?

More BS by the anti-2nd amendment crowd. The right to keep and bear arms is not a collective right nor has it ever been, which is why it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to keep ad bear arms.The only thing the SC did was reaffirm the right to keep and bear arms, basically they just actually read the constitution.

You're just making a bare assertion here with no argument. Moreover, you claim that "only thing the SC did was reaffirm the right to keep and bear arms" is demonstrably wrong, because they never "re" affirmed anything, since there has been no affirmation of such a right from the SC to begin with. They created a new right. And that's great! But unless they are honest about their legal reasoning they are setting themselves up for failure. When the court changes back to a liberal bent (as it will inevitably do, these things go in cycles), all they have to do is look at the fact that Heller was based on original intent, and then the new liberal court will just have to say, "New historical information being considered, we see that Heller was mistaken in the facts about the second amendment's original intent, and overturn it." I want to see a robust individual right that can withstand an assault from antigun justices. But such a right would have to be rooted in sound jurisprudence.
 
I think the exercising of a right is not enough to warrant a "reasonable" search. Should you be fingerprinted for the friends you hang out with? Maybe for running your mouth? Maybe if you go to a particular church? How about it, Mr. Exercising-a-right-is-enough-to-constitute-reasonable-search?

Why so touchy? A firearm is a deadly weapon, and thus a finger print search is reasonably warranted under the fourth amendment. Moreover, a fingerprint search does not interfere with the right to keep and bear arms, so no right is lost there either. Going to a church, free association, no of that is potentially deadly, speech and no search is reasonable. However, things like "running your mouth" as you put it can require a search or a permit or some such depending on the time place and manner. This is a little more complicated than you make it out to be, and the oversimpiification is obscure the larger issue, and imputing constitutional violations where there are none.
 
I am not lying, and I do not think you are, either. One of us is mistaken, though, and I haven't see you provide any compelling historical information on how the Second Amendment ought to be interpreted. Tell me, if the second amendment was not intended as collective, what are we to make of the militia clause? Is it just fluff?
Why don't you read Heller and then explain, in supported detail, how the court's explanation of the 'militia clause' is wrong?

Why dont you then show us exactly who among the people that wrote and ratified the amendment, and with what terms, argued that the intent was to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual right?
 
Reakky? Show where, before the mid 20th centuryt, that the right to keep and bear arms was meaningfully held as a collective right to the exclusion of the individual right.
It's as simple as reading the text of the Second Amendment. The "well regulated militia" part. But it is also supported by looking to the various arms and militia clauses of state constitutions prior to the drafting of the Constitution. From a historical perspective there is really no serious debate about the collective right created by the Second Amendment, only in the bizzarro world of so-called originalist judges trying to rationalize an expansion of rights with an untenable philosophy does such a question exist. Why so eager to defend hypocrisy, Goobie?


This isnt a rebuttal or a refutation of the argument made by the SCotUS, this is an unsupported optinion piece.
Try again.

You should probably read Heller, and then you will realize how wrong you are to say that.

If this were true, then you could actually show this to be the case, with ease.
So, get busy showing that the original intent of the people that wrote the 2nd was to protect a collective right to the exclusion of an individual right.
What you're asking for takes time, so if you'll cease the ambush tactics I'd be happy to get back to you. I don't see any reason why we have to be so antagonistic about this, since we're on the same side. Why not work collaboratively? If I am wrong I will be only too glad to concede. The trouble is I am right.
 
Last edited:
It's as simple as reading the text of the Second Amendment.
Translation:
You know you cannot show where anyone intended what you say was intended, and thus cannot support your argument that the 2nd was intended to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual right.
Thanks for playing, sport.
 
Why don't you read Heller and then explain, in supported detail, how the court's explanation of the 'militia clause' is wrong?

Why dont you then show us exactly who among the people that wrote and ratified the amendment, and with what terms, argued that the intent was to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual right?

Gladly, but it will take a while. Give me an hour or so, is that fair?

Translation:
You know you cannot show where anyone intended what you say was intended, and thus cannot support your argument that the 2nd was intended to protect the collective right to the full exclusion of the individual right.
Thanks for playing, sport.

You chopped off the last bit. That's disingenuous. The "comparison to other state constitutions of the time" is significant. Or perhaps you wrote that before my edit?

The point is, there is no reason to be butting heads about it. Assume for a minute that I am right, and the original intent was to create a collective right, would you not want to acknowledge that, and go from there?
 
Last edited:
Federalist 46 kind of proves that the 2nd amendment was designed to create a collective benefit from the individual right to bare arms.

Madison authored both teh amendment and federalist 46:

The Federalist #46

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Kind of hard to argue for an intended collective right when the author of the amendement has, himself, indicated it was a right of the people that was coupled with the existence of subordinate governments, not defined by them.
 
Why so touchy? A firearm is a deadly weapon, and thus a finger print search is reasonably warranted under the fourth amendment. Moreover, a fingerprint search does not interfere with the right to keep and bear arms, so no right is lost there either. Going to a church, free association, no of that is potentially deadly, speech and no search is reasonable. However, things like "running your mouth" as you put it can require a search or a permit or some such depending on the time place and manner. This is a little more complicated than you make it out to be, and the oversimpiification is obscure the larger issue, and imputing constitutional violations where there are none.

It's not touchy, I was asking you a question. You seem to believe that the mere exercise of one RIGHT is enough to infringe upon another. There are lots of dangerous things out there, but we can't move until something happens. Documenting people to exercise a right, that's pretty damned sick. A right is a right, it means you possess it, it means the government can't take it, it's innately yours and above the government. You can exercise it at your discretion. The only requirement is that you do not infringe upon the rights of others. And even then, you can't pre-punish someone for exercising a right. We're reactive, not proactive. The mere exercise of a right cannot cause "reasonable" suspicion for a search. It's a right and you're free to exercise it without government interference, without punishment. That's what a right is.
 
You chopped off the last bit. That's disingenuous. The "comparison to other state constitutions of the time" is significant.
Its not significant until you show that it, somehow, supports your claim regarding original intent of the peopel that wrote and ratified the 2nd.

The point is, there is no reason to be butting heads about it.
And yet, you continue to do so, without so much as a shred of support for your claims.
 
Federalist 46 kind of proves that the 2nd amendment was designed to create a collective benefit from the individual right to bare arms.
This is exactly correct.
 
The trouble is that is isn't clear. It's actually very vague. There is a reason it took over two hundred years for the individual right to bear arms to come into existence. It's because reasonable people can disagree. A much better historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment is that it protects the collective right to bear arms. In order to provide for an effective militia, it is entirely reasonable to have laws that restrict personal gun ownership, for instance what if the state militia required all guns be kept in a militia storage facility for better access in time of war?

I have no problem with an individual right to keep and bear arms. But I do have a problem with hypocritical Justices who claim to want to follow the "original meaning" if the Constitution, but make decision like this that are flagrantly activist. If you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment as a living and growing thing, that's great. But Scalia, Thomas, Alito, they're all violating their expressed judicial philosophy in this and the DC v. Heller decision. It's hypocrisy plain and simple.




WTF are you on about? :lamo



"shall not be infringed" this decision upheld that. :shrug:
 
Kind of hard to argue for an intended collective right when the author of the amendement has, himself, indicated it was a right of the people that was coupled with the existence of subordinate governments, not defined by them.

It's also a "no duh" sort of thing too. Rights can only be held by individuals. There are no collective rights, that gets more into social contract. Rights themselves are innate to individuals, thus a right is by definition individualistic, not colllective.
 
Back
Top Bottom