• 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!

I love this ad

TurtleDude said:
before Heller, many pro gun rights legal scholars were looking at using the 9th amendment as a challenge to crap like the Clinton gun ban or the Hughes amendment: after all if the Ninth amendment could be read to protect rights the founders never would have supported (such as the right to engage in homosexual sex, abortion etc) then it should be read to protect private gun ownership which was clearly favored by the founders.

this line of activism was put on the back burner after Heller though but the real interesting issue in constitutional scholarship is that the incorporation of various rights contained in the BOR have created all sorts of court controversies due to some states police powers interfering with rights that the federal government was never given any power to interfere with
Click to expand...

Yes, I see the 4th amendment as the next one to get a big expansion to pretty much quell all those controversies.
 
Crovax said:
Yes, I see the 4th amendment as the next one to get a big expansion to pretty much quell all those controversies.
Click to expand...

The only possible interpretation of the second amendment that makes any sense in the context of the tenth amendment and the complete lack of authority granted to the federal government over private arms in Article one section 8 is the obvious interpretation that the second amendment is a blanket prohibition on federal activity involving what arms private citizens can own or keep

the founders KNEW that states had certain police powers concerning where you could carry a firearm or where you could use it and clearly they saw no need for the new federal government to have any overlapping authority in that area. the idea that the second amendment was "subject to limitations' is a blatant fraud since that completely misunderstands what the bill of rights in general and the second amendment means-they are all NEGATIVE restrictions on the federal government.
 
haymarket said:
It had everything to do with 30 years of right wing activism. Please read Michael Waldmans excellent book on the SECOND AMENDMENT: A BIOGRAPHY. Not only does he discuss the case in great detail exposing the flaws Scalia - he traces why it happened in the first place with the thirty years I referenced.

Scalia ignored the idea that if the Second Amendment can evolve and change, so had society attitude towards government and the role it plays in our lives through regulation and legislation and guns should be part of that. So yes - he took only the parts of evolution that he liked and rejected the corresponding other half.
Click to expand...

No other right has regulation and legislation take precedent of the main function of the right. Arguing that because people in society want it should happen goes directly against the ideals the country was founded on. The tyranny of the majority doesn't get to remove a right just because they don't like it.
 
TurtleDude said:
because its true. The Heller decision guaranteed the ability of people to own handguns in their home. Hillary has publicly claimed this decision should be overturned.

Click to expand...


Saw this a week ago. Loved it. At least people should know what is coming, in some households. Not ours.
 
Casper said:
Saw this a week ago. Loved it. At least people should know what is coming, in some households. Not ours.
Click to expand...

Hillary clearly thinks HELLER should be overturned meaning that the court should change and rule that there is NO INDIVIDUAL right to own handguns. while I doubt Hillary and democrats could pass a national ban, there is no doubt places like Chicago, San Fran, Baltimore and other bannerrhoid enclaves might try to reinstate bans or pass some and those living in such areas would have no recourse. SO yes, a Hillary presidency could very well mean people living in blue states or cities would be disarmed.

and if you watch Hillary's dishonest weaseling when being questioned by Stephanopolous, its obvious she doesnt' believe that there is a guaranteed right for citizens to own firearms
 
TurtleDude said:
Hillary clearly thinks HELLER should be overturned meaning that the court should change and rule that there is NO INDIVIDUAL right to own handguns. while I doubt Hillary and democrats could pass a national ban, there is no doubt places like Chicago, San Fran, Baltimore and other bannerrhoid enclaves might try to reinstate bans or pass some and those living in such areas would have no recourse. SO yes, a Hillary presidency could very well mean people living in blue states or cities would be disarmed.

and if you watch Hillary's dishonest weaseling when being questioned by Stephanopolous, its obvious she doesnt' believe that there is a guaranteed right for citizens to own firearms
Click to expand...

I disagree, I believe that Hillary and the Dems could very well push for National bans, all it take is some nutjob doing some really horrible and guess what people will be losing their rights. Sadly I do believe she will win and the clock is ticking, I have mine and everything to go with them and will be giving up nothing, most I know are there or close to it so no matter what we at least will not lose our rights as set forth by the Founders. Gonna get ugly, the 2nd A rights Citizens need to get their legal ducks in a row, at least give a fight in the courts.
 
Casper said:
I disagree, I believe that Hillary and the Dems could very well push for National bans, all it take is some nutjob doing some really horrible and guess what people will be losing their rights. Sadly I do believe she will win and the clock is ticking, I have mine and everything to go with them and will be giving up nothing, most I know are there or close to it so no matter what we at least will not lose our rights as set forth by the Founders. Gonna get ugly, the 2nd A rights Citizens need to get their legal ducks in a row, at least give a fight in the courts.
Click to expand...

right now it appears the GOP will hold the senate and probably congress. I know Dems were counting on winning in Ohio but the DNC has pulled its support of Ted Strickland and every poll has Portman comfortably ahead. but never count out bannerrhoid sentiments infecting Republicans

I have advised the many people who ask what to do

I have bought several AR 15 lower receivers. they cost me around 50 bucks each and they are the one part that you have to fill out paperwork on. short of a law trying to confiscate firearms you currently own at the time the law is passed, the bannerrhoids cannot stop someone from assembling an "assault weapon" from those receivers. I also have 4 lower parts kits complete

Most serious shooters have been quietly stocking up on normal capacity magazines for years. we saw what happened to prices when the idiotic clinton crap was instituted in 1994. SO most of my shooting friends have bought dozens upon dozens of 30 round AR magazines and the normal capacity also magazines for their pistols. My wife, my son and I all shoot two types of CZ pistols-one set takes the TS 20 round magazine (23 if you put the extended IPSC legal baseplate on it) and the 27 round USPSA Open (170mm) mags. So we bought a bunch of them and the others take the Mec-Gar 19 round SP01 magazines and we have stocked up on those too. same with the 31 round GLOCK 17 ETS magazines since we run PSA 9mm carbines in steel events and will run them in the new USPSA PCC division.

and AMMO. buying as much 22 as I can store-the other stuff I have commercial grade reloading machines for.
 
TurtleDude said:
right now it appears the GOP will hold the senate and probably congress. I know Dems were counting on winning in Ohio but the DNC has pulled its support of Ted Strickland and every poll has Portman comfortably ahead. but never count out bannerrhoid sentiments infecting Republicans

I have advised the many people who ask what to do

I have bought several AR 15 lower receivers. they cost me around 50 bucks each and they are the one part that you have to fill out paperwork on. short of a law trying to confiscate firearms you currently own at the time the law is passed, the bannerrhoids cannot stop someone from assembling an "assault weapon" from those receivers. I also have 4 lower parts kits complete

Most serious shooters have been quietly stocking up on normal capacity magazines for years. we saw what happened to prices when the idiotic clinton crap was instituted in 1994. SO most of my shooting friends have bought dozens upon dozens of 30 round AR magazines and the normal capacity also magazines for their pistols. My wife, my son and I all shoot two types of CZ pistols-one set takes the TS 20 round magazine (23 if you put the extended IPSC legal baseplate on it) and the 27 round USPSA Open (170mm) mags. So we bought a bunch of them and the others take the Mec-Gar 19 round SP01 magazines and we have stocked up on those too. same with the 31 round GLOCK 17 ETS magazines since we run PSA 9mm carbines in steel events and will run them in the new USPSA PCC division.

and AMMO. buying as much 22 as I can store-the other stuff I have commercial grade reloading machines for.
Click to expand...
All excellent ideas. I have my basic load stock fulfilled per firearm and caliber and own all the AR's I and a few extra will need. Have a friend that has a printer that he has been very busy with and I am on order, heck have most of the rest to finish builds on at least three, you know, spare parts ya gotta have. Don't do much reloading other than SG, but know enough that do, really not sure it will be an issue since I have waaaaay more ammo than I really need, ask my wife. But yes, get it now, after the swearing in anything can happen, heck after November the shelves will begin to empty quickly. I also bought up a lot of extra mags, 30rd mainly, great if I ever want to cash em in, last ban a $15 mag went for $100, plus great barter if things go really bad.
 
Casper said:
All excellent ideas. I have my basic load stock fulfilled per firearm and caliber and own all the AR's I and a few extra will need. Have a friend that has a printer that he has been very busy with and I am on order, heck have most of the rest to finish builds on at least three, you know, spare parts ya gotta have. Don't do much reloading other than SG, but know enough that do, really not sure it will be an issue since I have waaaaay more ammo than I really need, ask my wife. But yes, get it now, after the swearing in anything can happen, heck after November the shelves will begin to empty quickly. I also bought up a lot of extra mags, 30rd mainly, great if I ever want to cash em in, last ban a $15 mag went for $100, plus great barter if things go really bad.
Click to expand...

powder and primers get scarce so I am buying that stuff as well. the good thing is I get almost 2000 rounds out of a pound of tite group for 9mm.
 
Crovax said:
No other right has regulation and legislation take precedent of the main function of the right. Arguing that because people in society want it should happen goes directly against the ideals the country was founded on. The tyranny of the majority doesn't get to remove a right just because they don't like it.
Click to expand...

As I have repeatedly said and consistently said - regulation cannot deprive the citizenry of he right being exercised. That would cause it to be INFRINGED which is what the Amendment prohibits.
 
haymarket said:
As I have repeatedly said and consistently said - regulation cannot deprive the citizenry of he right being exercised. That would cause it to be INFRINGED which is what the Amendment prohibits.
Click to expand...

And I would argue that an AWB or high capacity magazine ban does deprive on that right as those are standard firearms now.

I would also argue that a UBC at the federal level is outside of the scope of the commerce clause.

So what exactly should Scalia have put in his decisions regarding regulations?
 
Crovax said:
And I would argue that an AWB or high capacity magazine ban does deprive on that right as those are standard firearms now.

I would also argue that a UBC at the federal level is outside of the scope of the commerce clause.

So what exactly should Scalia have put in his decisions regarding regulations?
Click to expand...

The Amendment does NOT protect individual weapons or types of weapons or parts of weapons.

Scalia simply should have recognized the the right can exist side by side with reasonable regulation from government providing that regulation does not create an environment where the right cannot be exercised by a citizen.
 
Casper said:
Saw this a week ago. Loved it. At least people should know what is coming, in some households. Not ours.
Click to expand...

the only way this ad makes sense is if one lives in an alternate reality where Clinton has openly stated her opposition to the Second Amendment advocating its repeat. And that is not even close by a mile.

This is simply more NRA over the top hyperbole whipping up the true believers on the alt-right who subscribe to their alternate reality in an America which exists only in their own minds.
 
haymarket said:
The Amendment does NOT protect individual weapons or types of weapons or parts of weapons.

Scalia simply should have recognized the the right can exist side by side with reasonable regulation from government providing that regulation does not create an environment where the right cannot be exercised by a citizen.
Click to expand...

WRONG the 2nd protects arms. there are no exceptions. Arms mean any and all arms. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. A ban is absolutely an infringement.

You don't like that pass an amendment to change it.
 
blaxshep said:
WRONG the 2nd protects arms. there are no exceptions. Arms mean any and all arms. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. A ban is absolutely an infringement.

You don't like that pass an amendment to change it.
Click to expand...

The Amendment says nothing about protecting any arms. It protects the right to keep and bear arms.

You made up the other stuff.
 
I think it is a good ad, but my only concern is that Trump has most of the gun-rights voting block by now anyways. You can see the difference in this ad with Clinton's ad about Trump treating women poorly. Hers is a universal issue, whereas worrying about someone breaking into your house and wanting to have guns is a more specific subset of people.
 
haymarket said:
The Amendment says nothing about protecting any arms. It protects the right to keep and bear arms.

You made up the other stuff.
Click to expand...

Right it protects the right to keep and bare ANY and ALL arms there is no exception. Period. You can play all the word games all you want, that's all you got or ever had, you are still impossible to debate with, you know ****ing well what I meant, back on ignore you go.
 
haymarket said:
The Amendment does NOT protect individual weapons or types of weapons or parts of weapons.

Scalia simply should have recognized the the right can exist side by side with reasonable regulation from government providing that regulation does not create an environment where the right cannot be exercised by a citizen.
Click to expand...

100% flat out wrong, no other right is subject to reasonable regulation.
 
blaxshep said:
Right it protects the right to keep and bare ANY and ALL arms there is no exception. Period. You can play all the word games all you want, that's all you got or ever had, you are still impossible to debate with, you know ****ing well what I meant, back on ignore you go.
Click to expand...



You are the only playing games as you make stuff up that is not in the Amendment and then delude yourself into believing that is what it says.
 
Crovax said:
100% flat out wrong, no other right is subject to reasonable regulation.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment refers to no other rights.

And your statement is not true at all. The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms is mentioned one single time. The right to vote is mentioned five different times in five different sections. And that right is heavily regulated by government.

I must vote at only one place the government assigns to me or by absentee sent to one place the government assigns to me.

I can only vote during certain hours the government has decided upon.

I must register in advance to exercise my right - in some cases 30 days or more ahead or I cannot exercise it it.

I can only vote during the time period - certain days or weeks - the government decides they will honor by exercising of the vote.

Many places can force me to produce identification or I cannot exercise my right to vote.

And many places mandate only certain forms of identification or I cannot exercise my right to vote.

Some states limit my choices in primaries forcing me to select one party and deny me the right to vote for the candidate(s) of my choice if they are running in different parties for different offices.

So you are dead wrong when you say other votes are not regulated by government as I just gave you several real life examples of just that.
 
haymarket said:
The Second Amendment refers to no other rights.

And your statement is not true at all. The Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms is mentioned one single time. The right to vote is mentioned five different times in five different sections. And that right is heavily regulated by government.

I must vote at only one place the government assigns to me or by absentee sent to one place the government assigns to me.

I can only vote during certain hours the government has decided upon.

I must register in advance to exercise my right - in some cases 30 days or more ahead or I cannot exercise it it.

I can only vote during the time period - certain days or weeks - the government decides they will honor by exercising of the vote.

Many places can force me to produce identification or I cannot exercise my right to vote.

And many places mandate only certain forms of identification or I cannot exercise my right to vote.

Some states limit my choices in primaries forcing me to select one party and deny me the right to vote for the candidate(s) of my choice if they are running in different parties for different offices.

So you are dead wrong when you say other votes are not regulated by government as I just gave you several real life examples of just that.
Click to expand...

I didn't say other rights are not regulated by the govt. Had you actually bothered to read my post, I said that no other rights are subject to "reasonable regulation".

If you had actually taught civics for as long as you claimed you would know that constitutional rights fall under what is called strict scrutiny. Which means the govt must have a compelling intrest to regulate, the regulation must be tailored as narrow as possible to meet that interest and it must be done in the least restrictive way possible.

So no just being a "reasonable regulation" is not enough to infringe on constitutional rights, which whether you like it or not includes the right to keep and bear arms
 
Bob N said:
I didn't know that Hillary was running for the Supreme Court. How does she overturn it if she is not a sitting judge?
Click to expand...

POTUS appoints SCOTUS, but you already knew that. :roll:
 
Bob N said:
I didn't know that Hillary was running for the Supreme Court. How does she overturn it if she is not a sitting judge?
Click to expand...

She packs the court with justices who will.
 
Bob N said:
I didn't know that Hillary was running for the Supreme Court. How does she overturn it if she is not a sitting judge?
Click to expand...

Do you really not know that the next President will be able to nominate three or maybe even four justices? Do you really imagine, given Mrs. Clinton's extremely narrow view of the Second Amendment right, that she would not nominate judges who shared that view? If Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller had replaced Justice Scalia's majority opinion--and it missed by only a single vote--the individual right to keep and bear arms would be so limited as to be non-existent.
 
Crovax said:
I didn't say other rights are not regulated by the govt.
Click to expand...

Yes you did.


Quote Originally Posted by Crovax View Post
100% flat out wrong, no other right is subject to reasonable regulation.
Click to expand...

If you had actually taught civics for as long as you claimed you would know that constitutional rights fall under what is called strict scrutiny. Which means the govt must have a compelling intrest to regulate, the regulation must be tailored as narrow as possible to meet that interest and it must be done in the least restrictive way possible.
Click to expand...

And nothing I have advocated violates that and the right would be preserved to be exercised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom