• 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!

STOP pretending about guns[W:687]

Re: STOP pretending about guns

Aberration said:
Are you comparing how you wrote legislation in the 21st Century with how legislations was written in the 18th Century? How ironic.

But of course your premise is wrong. Just because the Framers, not the Founders, didn’t define every word does not mean those words did not have actual meaning at the time. Not only do we have dictionaries, but they wrote extensively about their intent. Nothing written at that time even remotely supports your “interpretation”. Intellectual fraud indeed. That is the point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually I was schooling you on the importance of definition of terms in the law to avoid arguments about interpretation that will arise later ......... as they do in the Constitution where there is no definition of terms.
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

haymarket said:
I will be glad to debate you one on one on the issue of the militia. I have done this before. As these things go, we need a judge and just who would that be?
Click to expand...

You will find the rules and guidelines below for the "Battlegrounds and Disputes" Forum......

https://www.debatepolitics.com/batt...ds-and-disputations-rules-and-guidelines.html

When you have read through them, let me know and I will contact a mod to begin scheduling the debate.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/battle-grounds-and-disputations/157207-debate-classifieds.html
 
Last edited:
Re: STOP pretending about guns

haymarket said:
Actually I was schooling you on the importance of definition of terms in the law to avoid arguments about interpretation that will arise later ......... as they do in the Constitution where there is no definition of terms.
Click to expand...

I believe I was the one who provided the lesson when we were discussing what a machine gun was and I used the law and you used what someone heard.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

haymarket said:
When I worked for the Michigan legislature, a great deal of my time was spent writing legislation. One of the first things you do in a bill is define the important terms . You do this in as clear of language as possible so that the problem of interpretation does not raise its head down the road. Although that does not mean it will not. But we do it to try and clearly define the terms.

No such thing was done with the Second Amendment. The Founders who wrote it provided us with no definition of terms. So there is no choice but to interpret the words and their meaning. That does not involve any lie and to suggest it does is the worst sort of slander and the commission of intellectual fraud of the lowest sort.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem quite honest to say that the founders left us no trail of considerations in the drafting.
There is plenty of information on this if you search. Example: https://todaidojo.com/self-defense-training/the-truth-behind-the-second-amendment/
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

Cable said:
It doesn't seem quite honest to say that the founders left us no trail of considerations in the drafting.
There is plenty of information on this if you search. Example: https://todaidojo.com/self-defense-training/the-truth-behind-the-second-amendment/
Click to expand...

I stated that there was no clear definition of terms for the Amendment. And there are not.

Of course there is historical information. And that is also a selective process as to what to include and what to not include. And of course, we are also severely limited by what information is available in the first place.
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

Aberration said:
I believe I was the one who provided the lesson when we were discussing what a machine gun was and I used the law and you used what someone heard.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

As I said, in court, you are free to make your narrow legal argument.

This issue is before the American people - not in court.
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

haymarket said:
When I worked for the Michigan legislature, a great deal of my time was spent writing legislation. One of the first things you do in a bill is define the important terms . You do this in as clear of language as possible so that the problem of interpretation does not raise its head down the road. Although that does not mean it will not. But we do it to try and clearly define the terms.

No such thing was done with the Second Amendment. The Founders who wrote it provided us with no definition of terms. So there is no choice but to interpret the words and their meaning. That does not involve any lie and to suggest it does is the worst sort of slander and the commission of intellectual fraud of the lowest sort.
Click to expand...

An interpretation that guts the Second Amendment and leaves it without any effect is clearly beyond the authority of the Judiciary. The Judiciary may not eliminate clauses of the Constitution by fiat. That is in fact what the idea that the Second Amendment rights are not individual rights does.

In order to eliminate the Second Amendment by constitutional amendment it will be necessary for the US government to show itself to be more worthy of the the people's trust than it has been to date. Trust in the government is at an all time low, therefore amending the Second Amendment is unlikely.
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

haymarket said:
I stated that there was no clear definition of terms for the Amendment. And there are not.

Of course there is historical information. And that is also a selective process as to what to include and what to not include. And of course, we are also severely limited by what information is available in the first place.
Click to expand...

We are not really severely limited in information on this one. There are tons of historical writings on it.
There were obviously two schools of thought, even way back then.
The amendment is what it is. That is law. If you want to change the amendment, it will be very difficult.
When you start taking this one apart, well, the country is very divided on it. Could be very bad in outcome.
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

LowDown said:
An interpretation that guts the Second Amendment and leaves it without any effect is clearly beyond the authority of the Judiciary. The Judiciary may not eliminate clauses of the Constitution by fiat. That is in fact what the idea that the Second Amendment rights are not individual rights does.

In order to eliminate the Second Amendment by constitutional amendment it will be necessary for the US government to show itself to be more worthy of the the people's trust than it has been to date. Trust in the government is at an all time low, therefore amending the Second Amendment is unlikely.
Click to expand...

Has not the judiciary already had the practical effect of eliminating the first half of the Amendment in the narrow Heller decision?
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

haymarket said:
and who will judge?
Click to expand...

The forum or mods, of course.

You and I shall each present our case; "Does the militia still legally exist"?......and allow the judges to decide based upon preponderance of fact and evidence of the current Codes, Statutes, laws, and relevant history.
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

Cable said:
We are not really severely limited in information on this one. There are tons of historical writings on it.
There were obviously two schools of thought, even way back then.
The amendment is what it is. That is law. If you want to change the amendment, it will be very difficult.
When you start taking this one apart, well, the country is very divided on it. Could be very bad in outcome.
Click to expand...

I have never advocated changing the Amendment.
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

Polar Bum said:
The forum or mods, of course.

You and I shall each present our case; "Does the militia still legally exist"?......and allow the judges to decide based upon preponderance of fact and evidence of the current Codes, Statutes, laws, and relevant history.
Click to expand...

That is far too narrow a question since it hinges on the word LEGALLY as opposed to REALISTICALLY or PRACTICALLY. I have already accepted that there is a legal law on the books so that proposal is a non-starter. My argument has always been that regardless of any law on the books - there is no real militia functioning in the USA as our line of defense as it has been replaced by a standing armed forecasted professional police departments and agencies.
 
Last edited:
Re: STOP pretending about guns

Cable said:
Can you explain?
Click to expand...

Scalia in Heller pretty much dismissed the entire first half of the Second amendment with a wave of his hand and disconnected the right with the militia language. He did just what you stated the judiciary should not do.

Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
An interpretation that guts the Second Amendment and leaves it without any effect is clearly beyond the authority of the Judiciary. The Judiciary may not eliminate clauses of the Constitution by fiat.
Click to expand...

I realize you most likely support his opinion and like the outcome, but he did just what you said the judiciary should not do.
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

haymarket said:
That is far to narrow a question since it hinges on the word LEGALLY as opposed to REALISTICALLY or PRACTICALLY. I have already accepted that there is a legal law on the books so that proposal is a non-starter. My argument has always been that regardless of any law on the books - there is no real militia functioning in the USA as our line of defense as it has been replaced by a standing armed forecasted professional police departments and agencies.
Click to expand...

Ah.....now you are changing your position.

Yeah, that comes as no shock.

So, you admit that the militia legally exists?

That has been my position from the beginning.....the militia legally exists.....it is still law.

And how does the law define militia?
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

Polar Bum said:
Ah.....now you are changing your position.
Click to expand...
NO. That was my position all through our exchange over the past several days.

So, you admit that the militia legally exists?
Click to expand...

On paper as a law but not in the really, practical world of the USA in 2017. That has been my position all through the debate.

Let me ask you this question, why is it important for you to define this whole idea of the militia in the first place since Scalia separated the militia from the right in Heller?
Click to expand...
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

haymarket said:
Has not the judiciary already had the practical effect of eliminating the first half of the Amendment in the narrow Heller decision?
Click to expand...

The argument has been made, typified by the dissent in Heller, that 2A only applied to state militia service. If this interpretation is accepted then 2A loses all meaning and effect and becomes unnecessary. There is no state militia that would deny its members access to arms. The only way that 2A makes the most sense and retains an important purpose is if the right to bear arms is an individual right.

Another way of looking at the first part of 2A is to remember that under certain circumstances the "militia" could include everyone capable of using a gun, the entire able adult population. Which is to say that the right to bear arms extends to everyone who can use one.

Persons naturalized as American citizens still have to pledge to take up arms in defense of the country even today, which emphasizes the idea that the militia could include everyone, all adult citizens.
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

haymarket said:
NO. That was my position all through our exchange over the past several days.



On paper as a law but not in the really, practical world of the USA in 2017. That has been my position all through the debate.

Let me ask you this question, why is it important for you to define this whole idea of the militia in the first place since Scalia separated the militia from the right in Heller?
Click to expand...

And the definition of unorganized militia being "every free male between the ages of 17-45"......that definition which was not repealed, but added to, and still remains legally binding.

So....unless every free male between the ages of 17-45 has suddenly disappeared from the population of the Unites States, the militia, as it was written, still exists in physical form, regardless of those militia members not having been called up.
Click to expand...
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

LowDown said:
The argument has been made, typified by the dissent in Heller, that 2A only applied to state militia service. If this interpretation is accepted then 2A loses all meaning and effect and becomes unnecessary. There is no state militia that would deny its members access to arms. The only way that 2A makes the most sense and retains an important purpose is if the right to bear arms is an individual right.

Another way of looking at the first part of 2A is to remember that under certain circumstances the "militia" could include everyone capable of using a gun, the entire able adult population. Which is to say that the right to bear arms extends to everyone who can use one.

Persons naturalized as American citizens still have to pledge to take up arms in defense of the country even today, which emphasizes the idea that the militia could include everyone, all adult citizens.
Click to expand...

And I have no problem with Scalia proclaiming that it has evolved into an individual right. That is fine as far as it goes.

But Scalia went further than that in separating that right from the first half of the Amendment about the militia which tells us how the Founders envisioned the right being exercised and the powers Congress has in the Constitution regarding the militia and thus the arms of the militia.
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

Polar Bum said:
haymarket said:
And the definition of unorganized militia being "every free male between the ages of 17-45"......that definition which was not repealed, but added to, and still remains legally binding.

So....unless every free male between the ages of 17-45 has suddenly disappeared from the population of the Unites States, the militia, as it was written, still exists in physical form, regardless of those militia members not having been called up.
Click to expand...

Only on paper as it fails to practically and realistically exist in real life as it has been replaced by a standing armed forces and professional police departments and agencies.

I am 68 years old. According to you, I was a member of the militia serving the United States for 28 years even though I never knew it, even though I never spent one second doing anything militia related or on militia business and even though we had a standing armed forces and police to do all the things the Founders wanted the militia to engage in.

And that goes for every other able bodied American male in my age group or in the age group for the militia.

It amounts to a legal fiction true only on paper but absent from real life.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: STOP pretending about guns

Fledermaus said:
And yet you infringe upon that right.....

As a Milita member (as I was while not a military member) how can one prevent me from owning a "military style" weapon without infringing my rights?
Click to expand...
Fledermaus said:
You lied about there being no milita. The law still stands.

Post #254 awaits.
Click to expand...
haymarket said:
Making personal attacks against me does NOT provide you with an argument on the issue being discussed. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You appear to be angry since earlier your militia argument was exposed and destroyed. So now you resort to this sort of personal nonsense.
Click to expand...
I'll take a stab at what looks like a sandbox fight.

The Heller - Supreme Court of the United States allows for reasonable time, place and manner regulations. The devil is in enforcing them against a determined murdered such as Stephen Paddock. But regulations as to the types of guns and, more importantly as we learned last Sunday in Las Vegas accessories such as bump stocks are legitimate as long as their objective is not to virtually prohibit gun ownership.

haymarket said:
Only on paper as it fails to practically and realistically exist in real life as it has been replaced by a standing armed forces and professional police departments and agencies.

I am 68 years old. According to you, I was a member of the militia serving the United States for 28 years even though I never knew it, even though I never spent one second doing anything militia related or on militia business and even though we had a standing armed forces and police to do all the things the Founders wanted the militia to engage in.

And that goes for every other able bodied American male in my age group or in the age group for the militia.

It amounts to a legal fiction true only on paper but absent from real life.
Click to expand...
As for the argument that a standing army and police departments displace "Second Amendment militias" many burglaries or even pick-pocketings would be sorely tempting except for the risk that one could wind up in a fire-fight. Or if some thug decides it's a good idea to beat the be-druthers out of someone on the street he may not. If everyone was disarmed and he saw no police car he could do what he wants. The presence of possibly armed motorists or pedestrians has a sobering effect sometimes.
 
Last edited:
Re: STOP pretending about guns

haymarket said:
Polar Bum said:
Only on paper as it fails to practically and realistically exist in real life as it has been replaced by a standing armed forces and professional police departments and agencies.

I am 68 years old. According to you, I was a member of the militia serving the United States for 28 years even though I never knew it, even though I never spent one second doing anything militia related or on militia business and even though we had a standing armed forces and police to do all the things the Founders wanted the militia to engage in.

It amounts to a legal fiction.
Click to expand...


"legal fiction" you say, yet it still remains "Legal fact".......as I said, unless the males 17-45 have physically been removed from our population, then, they do in fact physically represent the unorganized militia.....they have not been replaced, they still exist.

You are an academic, you should know the power of words....and details. Legal arguments and physical battles have been lost or won over such minor details.

Do you recall this statement?

Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post

Not its correct - there is no militia today - they have been replaced with the armed forces and professional police forces.

The definition has been provided many times in previous discussions ..... and you know it. And we will not agree about that either
Click to expand...

Physically, the unorganized militia still remains; the average citizen simply being unaware of that fact does not negate its existence.....not having been called up does not negate their physical existence.

And I do believe this ends the discussion.
Click to expand...
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

Polar Bum said:
haymarket said:
"legal fiction" you say, yet it still remains "Legal fact".......as I said, unless the males 17-45 have physically been removed from our population, then, they do in fact physically represent the unorganized militia.....they have not been replaced, they still exist.

You are an academic, you should know the power of words....and details. Legal arguments and physical battles have been lost or won over such minor details.

Do you recall this statement?



Physically, the unorganized militia still remains; the average citizen simply being unaware of that fact does not negate its existence.....not having been called up does not negate their physical existence.

And I do believe this ends the discussion.
Click to expand...

Your argument is a narrow legal argument based on a piece of paper which is not enforced and not implemented and not exercised in reality. As such, it fails to be real beyond that piece of paper which is ignored every day for a very very long time now.

The militia has been replaced by a standing armed forces and professional police forces and agencies. Every single function the Founders saw for the militia has been given to others. The militia exists only on a legal paper and not in real life with real people in the real America of 2017 and has not for a very very long time now.

You cannot deny that as it is reality.
Click to expand...
 
Re: STOP pretending about guns

I suppose since I'm not in the sandbox or playground fight I'm being ignored. I am rethinking my posting on this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom