• 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!

They came to take away the firearms

bomberfox said:
Incorrect as SCOTUS and history shows.
Click to expand...

You are confused about this.

The Heller case affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right the same as the right of free speech and the right of religion.

The Constitution establishes that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for the security of a free state.

A "right" that is licensed by the same assholes that the right was established to protect us from is not really a right, is it?

There should NEVER be a crime to have a firearm. The crime should be what you illegally do with the firearm.

Liberals are assholes not understanding what the Bill of Rights is all about.

Hopefully this case in New York that is being reviewed by the Supreme Court will establish that strict scrutiny has to be applied to the right to keep and bear arms like all other individual rights. Right now the despicable states and locals are not applying any scrutiny what so ever with their filthy gun control laws.
 
ataraxia said:
So you don’t think logarithmic changes in killing efficiency and speed should play any role regulatory considerations?

Let me ask you this: why have speed limits on highways? Whether you’re driving 55 mph, or 255 mph, it should be the same thing, just a little faster, right?
Click to expand...

There are already a plethora of regulations / laws addressing the technology advancements of modern day weaponry (bump stocks would be an example). Many times (don't know the percentage, but there are several examples) the current legislation in place isn't even being enforced, and often turns into a "feel-good" scenario that politicians are "doing something" to keep Americans "safe." Why not enforce the laws that we already have first before piling on additional? What legislation "needs" to be passed that is not reactive to the minority of incidents by criminals and mentally ill vs. the majority of otherwise legal gun owners?

In your example, legislation has already been passed to enforce speed limits (which, isn't always done either). What new legislation would be passed to react to drivers who habitually speed? If engineers create "George Jetson" type vehicles in the future with a top speed of 255mph .. I'm confident legislation will be passed to respond to the technology advancement.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Sadly, some individuals believe the right is unbroken until it can't be exercised at all. Limitations and restrictions aren't infringements, especially if they limit you to one gun that has a one bullet capacity, according to those individuals.

In before said individuals argue whiningly to quote them saying such when they are well aware they argued that already on multiple occasions.

Sophistry in support of tyranny is still tyranny.
Click to expand...

Limitations and restrictions are different than the right not being able to be exercised. As long as a person can have firearms and exercise the right, then it has NOT been infringed. That is what the Constitution speaks to and prohibits - not restrictions or limitations.
 
PCB66 said:
You are confused about this.

The Heller case affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right the same as the right of free speech and the right of religion.

The Constitution establishes that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for the security of a free state.

A "right" that is licensed by the same assholes that the right was established to protect us from is not really a right, is it?

There should NEVER be a crime to have a firearm. The crime should be what you illegally do with the firearm.

Liberals are assholes not understanding what the Bill of Rights is all about.

Hopefully this case in New York that is being reviewed by the Supreme Court will establish that strict scrutiny has to be applied to the right to keep and bear arms like all other individual rights. Right now the despicable states and locals are not applying any scrutiny what so ever with their filthy gun control laws.
Click to expand...

Heller case - yes, you are right, the SC ruled that 2nd Amendment stretches to private ownership without need to be in a militia...but you miss certain key points...a big one is that regulation of firearms is lawful. Also the following: "(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:". Please note that the link I am providing is the actual case link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Yes, the Constitution does say the free state part...but you left out the rest, which is conjunction with being called up to a militia. Heller supports this, the Constitution says it...historically, we have walked away from the use of militias. While there is a role of SDF's in about 23 states...they are underfunded and not trained military forces. And while these SDF's are under state control....they are only used if... and only if the National Guard is not present. Reason: SDF's suck at the job. And they have a long history of not doing the job well, dating back to the Revolutionary War. Oh, sure, some battles were won by militias over time...but the usual history is at best, one or two volleys and they run away, or they march to their state's border and refuse to cross to aid their country.

Many of our rights have licensing elements to it depending upon use. And again, the Heller decision, which you posted as part of your argument, also refutes your opinion on licensing AND your opinion that it should never be a crime to own a firearm. To give you historical context, which was used for the Heller decision, was that during the Revolution, when American forces marched through, one had to give a loyalty oath to Congress/American army to keep said firearms or it was taken from them (there is licensing and regulation in one fell swoop). There were inter-state travel bans when carrying firearms after the 2nd Amendment was passed and implemented. Further, states had the right to inventory your personal collection of firearms in case they were needed for use by the state militia....in order to keep a state free, as you pointed out.

Please know your history before you shake your fingers at anyone.
 
PCB66 said:
My "license" to own a firearm is the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

No it's not. You have been misinformed.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-SCOTUS justice Antonin Scalia

Such limitations on the Bill of Rights is not just limited to the 2nd amendment. For example, we also have the right to free speech. But a doctor or a lawyer are not free to just say whatever they want. They need licensing, and they are liable and accountable for what they say to all sorts of agencies and organizations, not to mention their own clients/patients.
 
PCB66 said:
You are confused about this.

The Heller case affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right the same as the right of free speech and the right of religion.
Click to expand...

We are not the ones confused/misinformed. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in the Heller case you cite:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
 
Last edited:
jotathought said:
There are already a plethora of regulations / laws addressing the technology advancements of modern day weaponry (bump stocks would be an example).
Click to expand...

The only reason the banning of bump stocks was taken so quietly was because Trump did it. If Obama had done it, there would have literally been blood in the streets- you know, the "second amendment types" Trump keeps talking about. Why are you OK with the banning of bump stocks? Why is that not "additional regulations when we are not enforcing the laws we already have?"


Case in point, your very next sentence:

Many times (don't know the percentage, but there are several examples) the current legislation in place isn't even being enforced, and often turns into a "feel-good" scenario that politicians are "doing something" to keep Americans "safe." Why not enforce the laws that we already have first before piling on additional? What legislation "needs" to be passed that is not reactive to the minority of incidents by criminals and mentally ill vs. the majority of otherwise legal gun owners?
Click to expand...

So why don't you answer that question for us using the example of the new regulations on bump stocks?

In your example, legislation has already been passed to enforce speed limits (which, isn't always done either). What new legislation would be passed to react to drivers who habitually speed? If engineers create "George Jetson" type vehicles in the future with a top speed of 255mph .. I'm confident legislation will be passed to respond to the technology advancement.
Click to expand...

The technology is already there, and these cars are already street legal (if you can afford them). This one just came out on the market. It is a street legal car with a top speed of around 300 mph:
Koenigsegg: The world's fastest car and other speedy vehicles - CBBC Newsround
 
ataraxia said:
The only reason the banning of bump stocks was taken so quietly was because Trump did it. If Obama had done it, there would have literally been blood in the streets- you know, the "second amendment types" Trump keeps talking about. Why are you OK with the banning of bump stocks? Why is that not "additional regulations when we are not enforcing the laws we already have?"


Case in point, your very next sentence:



So why don't you answer that question for us using the example of the new regulations on bump stocks?



The technology is already there, and these cars are already street legal (if you can afford them). This one just came out on the market. It is a street legal car with a top speed of around 300 mph:
Koenigsegg: The world's fastest car and other speedy vehicles - CBBC Newsround
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the ban on bump stocks. The bump stock was a legal accessory, it was approved by the ATF because it still required the user to pull the trigger for each shot (semi-automatic) and was targeted because of an isolated incident. It was a reactionary feel-good response to a technology advancement that was not being abused by a majority of lawful gun owners.

On your car analogy, you're proposing the government should expand the law to accommodate a minority of car owners (a positive) compared to the government restricting the laws to target the majority of legal gun owners (a negative).
 
haymarket said:
Limitations and restrictions are different than the right not being able to be exercised. As long as a person can have firearms and exercise the right, then it has NOT been infringed. That is what the Constitution speaks to and prohibits - not restrictions or limitations.
Click to expand...

Bull****. Its similar to saying that if you can write a book but can't publish a paper your right to free speech is not infringed. If a person can only buy 1 type of firearm, that can only fire one bullet you say the right is not infringed when its clear by multiple rulings from multiple US courts that it has been infringed and the law that states such is unconstitutional.

Your wordings are not just extreme, they are poisonings of the intent of the 2nd Amendment, you are nothing more than a enabler for power hungry scumbags that want to disarm people before they work their way up to being true tyrants. You are the worst kind of busy body, one that thinks they have our best intentions at heart. You are the reason why Democrats should never be allowed to have full power ever again, they are outright telling you they plan to abuse it and the citizenry.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Bull****. Its similar to saying that if you can write a book but can't publish a paper your right to free speech is not infringed.
Click to expand...

You seem to have your Amendments horribly mixed up and badly confused. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with books and newspapers.
 
Tigerace117 said:
I don’t know about that. The British Empire would therefore be profiting much more heavily from slavery.....and therefore abolition movements in England would have been weakened.
Click to expand...

Then how come they abolished slavery on the highly profitable sugar plantations in the West Indies in the 1830s?
 
Jason Warfield said:
SMH...total lack of historical context and facts...

The few firearms and three cannon that were buried in various locations did NOT belong to any individual, nor the shot or powder. They were owned by the colonial government. This was typical in each colony: the governor often kept the colony's military supplies in various public buildings...sometimes even the governor's mansion itself. In this case, colonists were able to move the stores to Concord to attempt to keep it out of the British army's hands.

When the British moved out of Boston, it was to quell the state of rebellion within the colony. And Massachusetts only. Gage felt that he moved quickly, an armed rebellion from other New England colonies would become almost impossible. He learned the new location of the three siege cannon and military stores at Concord.

So, when the British marched out of Boston, it was actually to capture the three cannon that were known to be big enough to shell Boston. It was also prudent to capture the military stores for the colony (not individuals) defense against the Indians and possibly the French.

In other words....Concord was a military target. They weren't collecting the firearms of colonists, they were going after a legitimate military supply target. It was a military operation, not a gun grab.

The thing is...colonists were allowed to keep firearms because many who lived on farms and on the frontier needed them for day-to-day survival. At least...those who could afford to do so. This is something that historically, many Americans get wrong. The firearms and shot and powder kept in stores at public buildings were owned by the colonial government to be distributed to those militia men who did not own weapons but headed the call to arms. It should also be noted that those who lived in more urban areas and cities...did not own firearms because they had very little, if any need for them. Perhaps a pistol, but not muskets.

BTW, everything I have said here can be backed up by the work of historians, archives of journals, letters and data from the time period of the colonists themselves, or notables such as Franklin, Washington, etc. This information can be found at any library or university...you need only to ask for it. My point: what I have said is not fake news, nor can you call it revisionist history.
Click to expand...

Great post. Shame it’ll fall on the deaf ears of the OP.
 
Tigerace117 said:
I don’t know about that. The British Empire would therefore be profiting much more heavily from slavery.....and therefore abolition movements in England would have been weakened.
Click to expand...

Yes I considered that possibility as well. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the South of course, demonstrating its economy depended heavily on slaves.
 
Decypher said:
Then how come they abolished slavery on the highly profitable sugar plantations in the West Indies in the 1830s?
Click to expand...

Because the sugar industry there had actually gone into a serious decline and was no longer profitable enough to justify defending.

Prior to their 180 the British Empire had been extremely heavily involved in the slave trade.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Because the sugar industry there had actually gone into a serious decline and was no longer profitable enough to justify defending.

Prior to their 180 the British Empire had been extremely heavily involved in the slave trade.
Click to expand...

Well of course the Brits were up to their neck in the slave trade. But the abolitionist movement was around in the 1780s, led by Quakers and latterly Wilberforce. He introduced anti-slavery bills in the 1790s. I believe their eventual success in 1807 was on ethical grounds rather than financial. However, I’ll admit to a cursory understanding of these events and am happy to consider any further information you might have.
 
PCB66 said:
Liberals in general and Democrats specifically can never be trusted with defining "common sense". They screw it up every time. They wouldn't know what common sense was if it was to bite them in the ass.
Click to expand...

This post isn't insightful.
 
Jason Warfield said:
Heller case - yes, you are right, the SC ruled that 2nd Amendment stretches to private ownership without need to be in a militia...but you miss certain key points...a big one is that regulation of firearms is lawful. Also the following: "(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:". Please note that the link I am providing is the actual case link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Yes, the Constitution does say the free state part...but you left out the rest, which is conjunction with being called up to a militia. Heller supports this, the Constitution says it...historically, we have walked away from the use of militias. While there is a role of SDF's in about 23 states...they are underfunded and not trained military forces. And while these SDF's are under state control....they are only used if... and only if the National Guard is not present. Reason: SDF's suck at the job. And they have a long history of not doing the job well, dating back to the Revolutionary War. Oh, sure, some battles were won by militias over time...but the usual history is at best, one or two volleys and they run away, or they march to their state's border and refuse to cross to aid their country.

Many of our rights have licensing elements to it depending upon use. And again, the Heller decision, which you posted as part of your argument, also refutes your opinion on licensing AND your opinion that it should never be a crime to own a firearm. To give you historical context, which was used for the Heller decision, was that during the Revolution, when American forces marched through, one had to give a loyalty oath to Congress/American army to keep said firearms or it was taken from them (there is licensing and regulation in one fell swoop). There were inter-state travel bans when carrying firearms after the 2nd Amendment was passed and implemented. Further, states had the right to inventory your personal collection of firearms in case they were needed for use by the state militia....in order to keep a state free, as you pointed out.

Please know your history before you shake your fingers at anyone.
Click to expand...

You are very confused about this.

The Bill of Rights is very specific about the right to keep and bear arms. It says that it shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is an individual right.

The only issue that has not been settled is how much scrutiny should the right have. Hopefully this case in New York that the Supremes have agreed to hear will settle that issue.

A right that is licensed is not really a right, is it? It is like saying you can do anything you want providing I say it is OK.

I don't have to get a license for free speech, do i? I don't have to get a license to go to church, do I? How about not to be put into slavery or have the right for a trail by my peers?

You really don't understand what the Bill of rights is all about, do you?

You really need to think a little bit before spouting the anti right to keep and bear arms garbage that we see quite often from the Left. it just makes you look foolish.
 
j brown's body said:
This post isn't insightful.
Click to expand...

It is if you understand it.

It is the filthy Democrats with their anti gun agenda that are acting like the Red Coats that marched on Lexington and Concord to take away the arms from the Americans.
 
PCB66 said:
Today is the 245th Anniversary of Lexington and Concord.

Kind of reminds you what the Democrats are trying to do nowadays, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Nope.

England was trying to stop an impending armed insurrection. What they intended to seize was not guns in the hands of individuals, it was an arms cache of an organized state militia. That's the equivalent of the Army raiding a National Guard depot.

The Revolutionary Army was also crippled by its reliance on militias, non-professional soldiers, and lack of materiel. The revolution would have lost, if it wasn't for external support from France... and a lot of luck.

On a side note, armed insurrection is actually not a good way to enact regime change. Non-violent movements are more successful, and the replacement governments tend to be more stable and more democratic. (See Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict for more details and evidence.)

So if you really want to protect your (other) rights, I suggest you either go to law school and become an expert in constitutional law, or better yet, donate to the ACLU.
 
haymarket said:
You seem to have your Amendments horribly mixed up and badly confused. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with books and newspapers.
Click to expand...

You seem to be confused, SCOTUS frequently uses means testing to make judgment comparisons between amendments to weigh the restrictions proposed. So you are wrong again, its your normal now.
 
PCB66 said:
You are very confused about this.

The Bill of Rights is very specific about the right to keep and bear arms. It says that it shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is an individual right.

The only issue that has not been settled is how much scrutiny should the right have. Hopefully this case in New York that the Supremes have agreed to hear will settle that issue.

A right that is licensed is not really a right, is it? It is like saying you can do anything you want providing I say it is OK.

I don't have to get a license for free speech, do i? I don't have to get a license to go to church, do I? How about not to be put into slavery or have the right for a trail by my peers?

You really don't understand what the Bill of rights is all about, do you?

You really need to think a little bit before spouting the anti right to keep and bear arms garbage that we see quite often from the Left. it just makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...

For the second two sentences after calling me confused, I refer you to the Heller case that was used in the original post and that I had linked to the actual case document and ruling. It specifically states that individuals can own a firearm, and I agreed to this...but also pointed out that regulations were allowed according to the Supreme Court ruling. That isn't my opinion or interpretation...that is the ruling. It says so. It's in the official Supreme Court document that I provided a link to. That is the ruling.

And yes, licensing can be used in conjunction with rights as long as it isn't ruled unconstitutional. Example:

The regulation of inventions and creative works through copyrights and patents is primarily a federal power enumerated in Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution. This federal power is complemented by state regulation of trade secrets, rights of publicity, and to the extent not limited by federal power, common law copyright protection. Trademarks and trade secrets are regulated by a combination of federal and state authority. The federal government derives from the commerce clause its authority to regulate these types of intellectual property.

Or the less esoteric, having a license or permit for public demonstrations. Read this article and follow the various links and case histories: Licensing and Permit Laws | The First Amendment Encyclopedia .

My argument to you, is based on facts. I have even provided to you the links that support my argument that can be verified as fact. I provided the link to the Heller case ruling. As well as historical incidents that can easily be verified by less than five minutes worth of online research. And your rebuttal to my position is...your opinion.

Look, you are entitled to your opinions, but your opinions are NOT facts or case histories or Supreme Court rulings. If you disagree with me, great, debate me with facts, not what you wish the world to look like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom