• 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

I'm sorry. I am just not as intelligent as you.

I understand that. But still, give it some effort instead of that lame POS statement you had last time.
 
This is your interpretation. Its not what the Constitution says. The Constitution actually says "speech".

Not an interpretation. A dictionary definition of what speech is. "Bearing arms" is defined as "possessing or carrying weapons". Nothing about shooting them. If one is to take the Constitution definitively and absolutely literally, this is how these terms are defined.
 
Not an interpretation. A dictionary definition of what speech is.
Sorry, but no. The term you want to use is not in the constution, and as such, your argument fails.
 
Not an interpretation. A dictionary definition of what speech is. "Bearing arms" is defined as "possessing or carrying weapons". Nothing about shooting them. If one is to take the Constitution definitively and absolutely literally, this is how these terms are defined.

bustedtees.ef270fa215d10509c3fd5a7396959940.gif


You all have it wrong.
The picture provides the meaning of the right to "bear arms." :2razz:
 
Not an interpretation. A dictionary definition of what speech is. "Bearing arms" is defined as "possessing or carrying weapons". Nothing about shooting them. If one is to take the Constitution definitively and absolutely literally, this is how these terms are defined.

It is in fact part of the definition. The etymology of the word tells us just that. The Oxford English Dictionary has Bear arms to include fighting as well, the functional form of using firearms. And that was the definition of the time. It doesn't matter which version you use now, if bearing arms meant only keeping arms, then we would not have distinguished between the two cases. The phrasing of the 2nd along with the actual definition of "to bear" shows definitively that the verb "to bear" includes the functional use of the device.
 
Last edited:
Not an interpretation. A dictionary definition of what speech is. "Bearing arms" is defined as "possessing or carrying weapons". Nothing about shooting them. If one is to take the Constitution definitively and absolutely literally, this is how these terms are defined.

Is that from a modern dictionary or from one written about the time the Constitution was written? I ask because Webster's 1828 Dictionary gives the definition of to bear arms as to carry weapons of war. Therefore, under the proper definition shooting is absolutely a part of owning firearms.
 
Is that from a modern dictionary or from one written about the time the Constitution was written? I ask because Webster's 1828 Dictionary gives the definition of to bear arms as to carry weapons of war.
His absurdity revolves around the idea that nothing in "keep and bear" includes the actual use of the firearm. Thus, the government may not infringe on you owning or carryng of a gun, but it may restrict, to any and every degree, the actual USE of the gun, even toi the point where it renders useless the right by prohibiting the actual use of the gun in total.

As I said before -- absurd on its face.
 
No, I certainly didn't. Again, you're not being careful. First off, the regulations are not on firing your weapon in general, it's about the use of a weapon when not necessary in certain circumstances. So that's not "regulating the firing of weapons". As I had mentioned early for those willing to pay attention, if you shoot someone in self-defense, you do not get in trouble for having fired your weapon. It's a certain set of circumstances which must be met, it's not just firing the weapon.

Secondly, it says nothing towards the historical meaning of "to bear arms", which was what post 311 was all about. Pay attention if you don't want to play the part of the fool.

Firstly, LA is right. I'm no one's fool. ANY regulation is regulation. I read post 311 and the historical definitions of bearing arms. I have also posted the dictionary definitions, which consistently indicate "possessing and carrying" and do NOT indicate firing. Further, most of your examples in post 311 use the definition in a military sense. That would exclude any private individual rights to your definition of bearing arms any way. Most of the other statements were interpretations or assumption, not definitive statements. If we are going to look at the Constitution in a completely literal sense, we must take it for what it says, not for what we think it means. Definitively, bearing arms is about "carrying and possessing". I would think that if the founders had mean using them, they would have said so. This is why the regulation of carrying and possessing should not be infringed. but regulations on usage is within the government's ability.
 
Sorry, but no. The term you want to use is not in the constution, and as such, your argument fails.

No Goobie, you fail. Words have meaning. Without them, they are random inkblots on paper... and if that is your position, them I must assume that you believe the Constitution to be completely meaningless as it says nothing,
 
No Goobie, you fail.
No, CC, you fail. The word "words" are not found in the 1st amedment, and as such, under your absurd notion, the use of words is not protected by the constitution.
 
it is state governments that regulate how guns are used

That is probably proper

It is the federal government that regulates what type of weapons people can own etc and that is not legitimate. There have always been prohibitions on firing weapons under certain circumstances and that is not an infringement IMHO as long as the restrictions meet certain tests. Clearly shooting a pistol off in a courtroom or a postal office unless you are under attack or engaging in a military operation is clearly a bad thing.

I would say that what you are saying here is pretty much what I am saying. It is not an infrngment to regulate the how, where, what, and why of firing a weapon, but it is an infringement to restrict the possession or carrying.

See? A 2nd Amendment lawyer agrees with me. :2razz:
 
Firstly, LA is right. I'm no one's fool. ANY regulation is regulation. I read post 311 and the historical definitions of bearing arms. I have also posted the dictionary definitions, which consistently indicate "possessing and carrying" and do NOT indicate firing. Further, most of your examples in post 311 use the definition in a military sense. That would exclude any private individual rights to your definition of bearing arms any way. Most of the other statements were interpretations or assumption, not definitive statements. If we are going to look at the Constitution in a completely literal sense, we must take it for what it says, not for what we think it means. Definitively, bearing arms is about "carrying and possessing". I would think that if the founders had mean using them, they would have said so. This is why the regulation of carrying and possessing should not be infringed. but regulations on usage is within the government's ability.

The founding fathers did intend for weapons to be used see Militia Act of 1792. The Militia Act of 1792 orders drills to be conducted by the militia; comprised of every citizen between the ages of 18-45.* Part of the drills are live fire exercises with the weapons a citizen carries or is assigned to use; in the case of artillery and warships.

*I use this phrasing because in modern times women and minorities are not disbarred from serving in the military and the discipline standards the militia uses are the ones from the federal military.
 
Last edited:
Is that from a modern dictionary or from one written about the time the Constitution was written? I ask because Webster's 1828 Dictionary gives the definition of to bear arms as to carry weapons of war. Therefore, under the proper definition shooting is absolutely a part of owning firearms.

Notice what you said. To "carry weapons of war". Nothing about firing/using them.
 
Notice what you said. To "carry weapons of war". Nothing about firing/using them.

Yes, we all know that the military issues weapons of war and never, ever fires them.... /sarcasm
 
I would say that what you are saying here is pretty much what I am saying. It is not an infrngment to regulate the how, where, what, and why of firing a weapon, but it is an infringement to restrict the possession or carrying.
These regulations, and their constitutionality, have nothing to do with your absurd argument. These things are allowed to be regulated by the government because of some constitutional loophole, but because the regulations in question cover thngs that exist wholly outside the right to arms itself.

It is illegal to fire a gun up in the air within city limits not because of your abusurd loophole but because it wantonly endangers others. Like yelling fire in a theater, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

Similarly, it is illegal to commit murder with a gun not because of your abusurd loophole but because it directly causes harm to others. Like engaging in slander and libel, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

I defy you to definitively ciite -any- restiction n the right to arms that is based on your silliness.
 
Firstly, LA is right. I'm no one's fool. ANY regulation is regulation. I read post 311 and the historical definitions of bearing arms. I have also posted the dictionary definitions, which consistently indicate "possessing and carrying" and do NOT indicate firing. Further, most of your examples in post 311 use the definition in a military sense. That would exclude any private individual rights to your definition of bearing arms any way. Most of the other statements were interpretations or assumption, not definitive statements. If we are going to look at the Constitution in a completely literal sense, we must take it for what it says, not for what we think it means. Definitively, bearing arms is about "carrying and possessing". I would think that if the founders had mean using them, they would have said so. This is why the regulation of carrying and possessing should not be infringed. but regulations on usage is within the government's ability.

Again, you're not being careful. There was a large debate over whether or not initially the 2nd referred to military use. But that wasn't the point of the post. The point was that in continually refers to the verb "to bear" as also including the functionality of the item being borne. Which is why the Founders use "To keep and bear arms". It is pointless to have arms if you cannot use them. Also, while you are talking of regulation in the broader sense of the exercise of the right, specifically what I was responding to was someone who claimed that the very act of firing the gun itself was regulated. But that's not true, there are definitely situations in which you fire your gun and face no repercussions for doing so. That shows that it is not merely the act of firing your gun which is regulated. But rather there are many factors including why you fired your gun, what you were firing your gun at, and where you were firing your gun that comes into play with these laws.

And again, I didn't say you had to be anyone's fool, you can be an independent fool if you wish.
 
I would say that what you are saying here is pretty much what I am saying. It is not an infrngment to regulate the how, where, what, and why of firing a weapon, but it is an infringement to restrict the possession or carrying.

See? A 2nd Amendment lawyer agrees with me. :2razz:

reasonable restrictions on usage based on intent or place are clearly constitutional.
 
These regulations, and their constitutionality, have nothing to do with your absurd argument. These things are allowed to be regulated by the government because of some constitutional loophole, but because the regulations in question cover thngs that exist wholly outside the right to arms itself.

It is illegal to fire a gun up in the air within city limits not because of your abusurd loophole but because it wantonly endangers others. Like yelling fire in a theater, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

Similarly, it is illegal to commit murder with a gun not because of your abusurd loophole but because it directly causes harm to others. Like engaging in slander and libel, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

I defy you to definitively ciite -any- restiction n the right to arms that is based on your silliness.

this argument is sound as well
 
I disagree-but only in France

Speaking of which....

Why were coalition casulaties so very, very light in the 1991 gulf war?

French forces operated unopposed.
 
Speaking of which....

Why were coalition casulaties so very, very light in the 1991 gulf war?

French forces operated unopposed.

I am sure you have seen the advertisement for Surplus French army rifles

Never fired and dropped only once!
 
I am sure you have seen the advertisement for Surplus French army rifles

Never fired and dropped only once!
I thought those were ARVN rifles...?
 
Not an interpretation. A dictionary definition of what speech is. "Bearing arms" is defined as "possessing or carrying weapons". Nothing about shooting them. If one is to take the Constitution definitively and absolutely literally, this is how these terms are defined.

The constition is a charter, not a list. You have to interpret it. The 2nd amendments right to bear arms is not there so we can all walk around with unloaded shiny pistols on our hip. It is there because it is "necessary for the security of a free state." Self-defense, security, and a well ordered society are all principles laid down by the 2nd amendment. These are things that alone carring a gun will not fulfill, since it may be necessary to use the gun to maintain security, or protect yourself, etc.

We can make laws against reckless gunfire because it directly goes against the principles the 2nd amendment is there to protect, not because the constitution is silent about it.

Similarly we can make laws against citizens owning a full auto machine gun because it is not necessary for the security of a free state, self defense or security.

Your basic weapons, or arms though are protected because they fit within all the criteria. I need to be able to protect my self, but I don't need a machine gun to do it. I own a gun to feel secure, but I am obviosly not contributing to the security of the state when I fire it off in a highly populated area.

Thats my take of it anyway.
 
Last edited:
The constition is a charter, not a list. You have to interpret it. The 2nd amendments right to bear arms is not there so we can all walk around with unloaded shiny pistols on our hip. It is there because it is "necessary for the security of a free state." Self-defense, security, and a well ordered society are all principles laid down by the 2nd amendment. These are things that alone carring a gun will not fulfill, since it may be necessary to use the gun to maintain security, or protect yourself, etc.

We can make laws against reckless gunfire because it directly goes against the principles the 2nd amendment is there to protect, not because the constitution is silent about it.

Similarly we can make laws against citizens owning a full auto machine gun because it is not necessary for the security of a free state, self defense or security.

Your basic weapons, or arms though are protected because they fit within all the criteria. I need to be able to protect my self, but I don't need a machine gun to do it. I own a gun to feel secure, but I am obviosly not contributing to the security of the state when I fire it off in a highly populated area.

Thats my take of it anyway.



BS-if civilian police officers have machine guns (they do) then the entity that employs them is estopped from claiming such weapons have no legitimate use for other civilians
 
Back
Top Bottom