• 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 offerered the amendments from you know,.... ummmm that Constitution thingy.

And you dismissed them without any consideration for what they say or the spirit in which they were framed.

I have (nor feel the need for) anything further, your honor.

I dismissed them as not applying to the argument at hand and cited reasons why. You say they do without evidence. This is why the case is dismissed in my favor.
 
You can keep insisting on this all day, but without any facts to back you up it means precisely zilch, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that CC has presented to the contrary. If you think that the Framers' original intent for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the right to shoot beer cans off a fence from federal encroachment, please provide some evidence for this position. I'd love to see it.

where did the founders give the federal government the power to regulate small arms
 
where did the founders give the federal government the power to regulate small arms

The commerce clause allows for regulation of small arms that travel across state lines. Apart from that, it would seem to have been up to the states to regulate all firearms used for any purpose, and before incorporation this would have even extended to militia use.
 
The commerce clause allows for regulation of small arms that travel across state lines. Apart from that, it would seem to have been up to the states to regulate all firearms used for any purpose, and before incorporation this would have even extended to militia use.

really? now i know that is the tortured explanation the FDR administration created to justify its tax on machine guns but do you believe that was an honest use of the commerce clause

and once the guns travel across state lines the interstate commerce issue ceases to exist. Thus, IF the commerce clause was intended for that (no serious scholar believes it was-) then I can see regulation of wholesalers who buy across state lines. But private citizens cannot buy a handgun in the state they do not live in so how does the commerce clause regulate a firearm in Ohio that I try to buy?

again the issue isn't what the government DOES but what it properly should be able to do
 
The fact that this request results in nothing but the appeal to ignorance logical fallacy, demonstrates that you position has no merit.
There's no appeal tpo 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.
 
Last edited:
You can keep insisting on this all day, but without any facts to back you up it means precisely zilch,...
Speaking of which.... its been 4 days and you have STILL not supplied any meaningful evidence that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd did so with the full intention to protect the collective exercise of the right to the full exception of the individual right to exercise said right.

What's the matter -- can't bring yourself to admit you're wrong?
 
again the issue isn't what the government DOES but what it properly should be able to do

Well, if that's what you're concerned about then you should be able to acknowledge that the second amendment creates no absolute right to gun ownership but one that is tied to militia service. The federal government has no authority to regulate guns except in DC where it can regulate as it sees fit subject only to the second amendment (which, on an originalist reading, protects only use for militia service), thus we see Heller is not originalist in any way. Moreover, on an originalist reading, the States have absolute authority to regulate gun ownership in-state, even if the commerce clause is read on a strict construction. Even post incorporation the states, like the federal government in DC, is curtailed only from infringing on the militia use of guns (nothing wrong with regulating it, of course), nothing more. There is no right protecting self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, or anything of the sort, and if the state wanted to make a law saying guns could only be used in the militia no honest originalist can say boo about it.

Now, that's if we're only concerned about originalism, and the original intent good bit more restrictive than a lot of the NRA literature will have you believe. For those of us who live in the real world, we recognize that the commerce clause has been expanded a great deal from its original meaning, and encompasses the regulation of guns traveling across state lines.
 
You can keep insisting on this all day, but without any facts to back you up it means precisely zilch, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that CC has presented to the contrary. If you think that the Framers' original intent for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the right to shoot beer cans off a fence from federal encroachment, please provide some evidence for this position. I'd love to see it.



I've provided tons of evidence of the Framer's intentions, which you have steadfastly ignored and continue to ignore.

Frankly you don't appear to be here for honest debate at all, and simply look more and more like a troll who posts unsupported opinions as if they were fact, over and over, ignoring anything that shoots down your position.

I have a policy about not feeding trolls.

But since you seem to just ignore facts, lets have them again:

What the Founders of the US said about guns:

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
On what is the militia:


George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment.

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)


FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth
of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the
Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages
who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean
to be masters." (Source still being sought)

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)
 
Last edited:
Well, if that's what you're concerned about then you should be able to acknowledge that the second amendment creates no absolute right to gun ownership but one that is tied to militia service. The federal government has no authority to regulate guns except in DC where it can regulate as it sees fit subject only to the second amendment (which, on an originalist reading, protects only use for militia service), thus we see Heller is not originalist in any way. Moreover, on an originalist reading, the States have absolute authority to regulate gun ownership in-state, even if the commerce clause is read on a strict construction. Even post incorporation the states, like the federal government in DC, is curtailed only from infringing on the militia use of guns (nothing wrong with regulating it, of course), nothing more. There is no right protecting self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, or anything of the sort, and if the state wanted to make a law saying guns could only be used in the militia no honest originalist can say boo about it.

Now, that's if we're only concerned about originalism, and the original intent good bit more restrictive than a lot of the NRA literature will have you believe. For those of us who live in the real world, we recognize that the commerce clause has been expanded a great deal from its original meaning, and encompasses the regulation of guns traveling across state lines.

You are absolutely right

under Cruikshank (a USSC case that anti gun judges butchered in subsequent appellate decisions) the USSC held that the second amendment CREATED NO RIGHTs

IT MERELY ACKNOWLEDGED RIGHTS THAT EXISTED PRIOR to the creation of the USSC and would exist even if the USSC disappeared.

we realize that the dems have bastardized the constitution with their improper expansion of the commerce clause and sadly the court didn't have the balls to strike that crap down when it started

but I see that tortured interpretation starting to wane. Lopez was the first blow
 
Well, if that's what you're concerned about then you should be able to acknowledge that the second amendment creates no absolute right to gun ownership but one that is tied to militia service.
This statement is patently false, as none of our rights are created by any of the amendments.
Past that, it is impossible for you to show that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd intended that the "right of the people" had to be exercised in conjunction with service in the militia for the protections of the 2nd to apply.

The federal government has no authority to regulate guns except in DC where it can regulate as it sees fit subject only to the second amendment (which, on an originalist reading, protects only use for militia service),
As noted above, your (statement) is impossiblee to support.

thus we see Heller is not originalist in any way.
Except, of course, that you cannot show that your premise for this statement is sound, as noted above.

Even post incorporation the states, like the federal government in DC, is curtailed only from infringing on the militia use of guns
Heller says otherwise.

There is no right protecting self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, or anything of the sort, and if the state wanted to make a law saying guns could only be used in the militia no honest originalist can say boo about it.
As already noted three times -- this statement is impossible to support.

Now, you can keep insisting on this all day, but without any facts to back you up it means precisely zilch,...
 
This statement is patently false, as none of our rights are created by any of the amendments.
Past that, it is impossible for you to show that the people that wrote and ratified the 2nd intended that the "right of the people" had to be exercised in conjunction with service in the militia for the protections of the 2nd to apply.


As noted above, your (statement) is impossiblee to support.


Except, of course, that you cannot show that your premise for this statement is sound, as noted above.


Heller says otherwise.


As already noted three times -- this statement is impossible to support.

Now, you can keep insisting on this all day, but without any facts to back you up it means precisely zilch,...


He hasn't supported anything, he just keeps repeating the same crap with no facts to back it up.

I'm about ready to designate target "Troll" and call for a fire mission from the Ignore Cannon. There's no point in debating someone who is impervious to facts.
 
we realize that the dems have bastardized the constitution with their improper expansion of the commerce clause and sadly the court didn't have the balls to strike that crap down when it started

but I see that tortured interpretation starting to wane. Lopez was the first blow

See, I can respect where you're coming from, this is a principled stance in favor of originalism, but it also entails a real change in the law of this country as it is currently practiced. Almost a revolution; as you say, "Lopez was the first blow." Even if we were to start today applying real originalism (whatever that is) stare decisis dictates that we must work within the interpretivist framework that currently exists.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I see originalism or "textualism" or "strict constructionism" as a futile and even self defeating philosophy, anyway. Interpretivism is a fact of life, whether its Ginsberg or Scalia, they're going to be applying their opinions to cases.

I don't mean this in a general, Legal Realist sort of way, but in a very visceral, partisan way (just look at Bush v. Gore to see how partisan the court can get, on both sides). The big advantage Ginsberg has on Scalia is that she is not burdened by a philosophy that is at odds with the agenda she advances. 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 just like the "bastardized the constitution" you're talking about expands the commerce clause.

Just as the outcome of the commerce clause would have been different if the Court had been strictly originalist in its jurisprudence, so too would Heller and McDonald have been radically different if Scalia had practiced real originalism rather than couching interpretivism in originalist rhetoric. And I would argue that gun rights would be on more solid footing if Heller and McDonald were rooted in unassailable interpretivist logic (a la Brown v. Board of Education) rather than and pseudo-originalism that was open to left wing attack.
 
Last edited:
See, I can respect where you're coming from, this is a principled stance in favor of originalism. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I see originalism or "textualism" or "strict constructionism" as a futile and even self defeating philosophy. Interpretivism is a fact of life, whether its Ginsberg or Scalia, they're going to be applying their opinions to cases. I don't mean this in a general, Legal Realist sort of way, but in a very visceral, partisan way (just look at Bush v. Gore to see how partisan the court can get, on both sides). But the big advantage Ginsberg has on Scalia is that she is not suffering for an incoherent philosophy when she advances her agenda. Heller and McDonald are just continuing the same sort of interpretive jurisprudence, expanding the second amendment just like the "bastardized the constitution" you're talking about expands the commerce clause. Just as the outcome of the commerce clause would have been different if the Court had been strictly originalist in its jurisprudence, so too would Heller and McDonald have been radically different. But even if we were to start today applying real originalism (whatever that is) stare decisis dictates that we must work within the interpretivist framework that currently exists.


To adhere to this line of thinking would be to say that Brown v. Board, or Dred Scott would still be in force....That is lunacy.


j-mac
 
See, I can respect where you're coming from, this is a principled stance in favor of originalism, but it also entails a real change in the law of this country as it is currently practiced. Almost a revolution; as you say, "Lopez was the first blow."

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I see originalism or "textualism" or "strict constructionism" as a futile and even self defeating philosophy. Interpretivism is a fact of life, whether its Ginsberg or Scalia, they're going to be applying their opinions to cases.

I don't mean this in a general, Legal Realist sort of way, but in a very visceral, partisan way (just look at Bush v. Gore to see how partisan the court can get, on both sides). The big advantage Ginsberg has on Scalia is that she is not suffering for an incoherent philosophy when she advances her agenda. Heller and McDonald are just continuing the same sort of interpretive jurisprudence, expanding the second amendment just like the "bastardized the constitution" you're talking about expands the commerce clause.

Just as the outcome of the commerce clause would have been different if the Court had been strictly originalist in its jurisprudence, so too would Heller and McDonald have been radically different. But even if we were to start today applying real originalism (whatever that is) stare decisis dictates that we must work within the interpretivist framework that currently exists.

heller expanded nothing

Heller was way too restrictive

A proper decision would have held that the federal government has no ability to regulate small arms at all
 
heller expanded nothing

Heller was way too restrictive

A proper decision would have held that the federal government has no ability to regulate small arms at all

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.
 
To adhere to this line of thinking would be to say that Brown v. Board, or Dred Scott would still be in force....That is lunacy.

I think you're thinking of Plessy v. Ferguson maybe? Brown v. Board of Education is still in force and for good reason.

By the way, is the "lunacy" you're referring to "originalism," because that is the only way I can make sense of your post. I am not advocating originalism.
 
Last edited:
I believe I did when I talked about jurisdictions of the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court. Since such mechanisms are listed by the BATFE as being illegal for failing to secure the tax stamp for full auto weapons depends upon the jurisdiction of the person. Until a case is heard by the Supreme Court, it only applies to one part of the country.

"...the power to tax is the power to destroy."

Need it be pointed out that the fact of a tax that precludes any form of gun ownership is in fact a violation of the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
 
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.

I have always thought of a malitia as a voluntary group of law enforcement/military, not something everyone was automatically a part of, so I am sorry that I did not catch your point at first.
 
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."

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.
 
Last edited:
There's no appeal tpo 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.

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.
 
Last edited:
I think you're thinking of Plessy v. Ferguson maybe? Brown v. Board of Education is still in force and for good reason.

By the way, is the "lunacy" you're referring to "originalism," because that is the only way I can make sense of your post. I am not advocating originalism.


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.


j-mac
 
Shall I create a poll and see how many agree with you?

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.
 
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.

I saw you in a movie some place

Greetings from Humongus, THe Lord Humongus................

How are the fingers?
 
Back
Top Bottom