• 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!

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

TurtleDude said:
I will ask one more time

do you believe that the federal government has the power to ban those convicted of a felony from owning a firearm?

same question for state governments?
Click to expand...

Are my questions invisible? LOL
 
TurtleDude said:
actually in the 45 years I have been active in this debate no one has ever claimed that merely admitting that state government can disarm convicted felons makes one a gun banner. Its a ludicrous argument that has no merit
Click to expand...

I have slept since then but I seem to recall us having that very discussion. The right to vote and bear arms once a criminal has paid their debt to society. We wandered around in the idea quite a bit, from many on the Right claiming our secular laws are Faith based where forgiveness of sin is a key element to banning those who have served their sentences from their 'natural' rights seems contrary to our Constitution and our Good Book.

When it comes to discussing 'gun' banners the definition can apply to anyone who wants to prevent firearm ownership by any group of citizens who are not judged mentally unsound. This form of 'gun' banning seems favored by the Right wing as they don't feel 'their kind' does this sort of thing (or can get the right restored by petition) and of course denying felons the right to vote 'protects' the ballot box from more leftie votes... ;)

The question has great merit, even if not every ardent 2nd A supporter thinks so. If all citizens have natural rights and we believe Faith is the basis for our nation then why are citizens, who have paid their debt, banned FOR LIFE from voting or protecting their 'innocent' loved ones as the 2nd A (and the NRA) proclaim???

It would seem a complete and outright ban is Unconstitutional... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
I have slept since then but I seem to recall us having that very discussion. The right to vote and bear arms once a criminal has paid their debt to society. We wandered around in the idea quite a bit, from many on the Right claiming our secular laws are Faith based where forgiveness of sin is a key element to banning those who have served their sentences from their 'natural' rights seems contrary to our Constitution and our Good Book.

When it comes to discussing 'gun' banners the definition can apply to anyone who wants to prevent firearm ownership by any group of citizens who are not judged mentally unsound. This form of 'gun' banning seems favored by the Right wing as they don't feel 'their kind' does this sort of thing (or can get the right restored by petition) and of course denying felons the right to vote 'protects' the ballot box from more leftie votes... ;)

The question has great merit, even if not every ardent 2nd A supporter thinks so. If all citizens have natural rights and we believe Faith is the basis for our nation then why are citizens, who have paid their debt, banned FOR LIFE from voting or protecting their 'innocent' loved ones as the 2nd A (and the NRA) proclaim???

It would seem a complete and outright ban is Unconstitutional... :peace
Click to expand...

And if they can't vote isn't that taxation without representation?

Which we fought a war over. With guns.

That the British tried to take away from us.
 
TurtleDude said:
I will ask one more time

do you believe that the federal government has the power to ban those convicted of a felony from owning a firearm?

same question for state governments?
Click to expand...

"Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear.
 
What if...? said:
And if they can't vote isn't that taxation without representation? Which we fought a war over. With guns. That the British tried to take away from us.
Click to expand...

It is one of several uncomfortable contradictions our Republic seems eager to ignore... :peace
 
notquiteright said:
It is one of several uncomfortable contradictions our Republic seems eager to ignore... :peace
Click to expand...

Im always amused by the "we don't have militias anymore so the second is irrelevant" argument.

Because it ignores the "no standing armies" part we also decided to ignore. Transforming our defensive only military to one that can indulge in foreign entanglements.

Which the founders obviously didn't want.
 
vegas giants said:
So you disagree with TD's interpretation of the constitution?
Click to expand...

The wording is pretty clear.

It refers to the right itself not being infringed.

I believe the founders were attempting two things.

Keep the state from disarming the people, a primary method of imposing tyranny.

Make our military purely defensive, to prevent us from imposing tyranny ourselves on others. To curtail the "urge to empire".
 
jet57 said:
I don't know; that's what Turltedude said, ask him.
Click to expand...

No. He said "current Supreme cases." That doesn't automatically means he question the individual right to carry. Besides, you agree with what you thought he said and so I'm asking you.
 
jet57 said:
I don't know; that's what Turltedude said, ask him.
Click to expand...

My interpretation is that he said that Heller was flawed. You jumped in with a post suggesting that he was saying that the individual right decision was the flaw, but it seems clear from his posting history that the wording on allowable restrictions is flawed.
 
What if...? said:
Im always amused by the "we don't have militias anymore so the second is irrelevant" argument.

Because it ignores the "no standing armies" part we also decided to ignore. Transforming our defensive only military to one that can indulge in foreign entanglements.

Which the founders obviously didn't want.
Click to expand...

Except that also ignores history. One of the first acts of our new government (yep, run by none other than the founding fathers) was to create a standing navy. At that time there were basically two components of an armed "defense" force: the navy and the army. It was deemed logical to not pay the the bulk of the army (infantry grunts) except when you needed them but, as army weapon systems and tactics matured, it became evident that more than a militia (infantry grunts?) was required to make use of these new weapon systems and tactics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Navy
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Except that also ignores history. One of the first acts of our new government (yep, run by none other than the founding fathers) was to create a standing navy. At that time there were basically two components of an armed "defense" force: the navy and the army. It was deemed logical to not pay the the bulk of the army (infantry grunts) except when you needed them but, as army weapon systems and tactics matured, it became evident that more than a militia (infantry grunts?) was required to make use of these new weapon systems and tactics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Navy
Click to expand...

The constitution does allow for a navy and marines for coastal defense.
 
What if...? said:
The wording is pretty clear.

It refers to the right itself not being infringed.

I believe the founders were attempting two things.

Keep the state from disarming the people, a primary method of imposing tyranny.

Make our military purely defensive, to prevent us from imposing tyranny ourselves on others. To curtail the "urge to empire".
Click to expand...

Then you believe all gun laws are unconstitutional?
 
What if...? said:
The constitution does allow for a navy and marines for coastal defense.
Click to expand...

I understand that completely.

Are you advocating for constitutional amendment to allow a standing army or calling for it to be disbanded as unconstitutional? Or, perhaps, are you using having a standing army as an excuse for ignoring the 2A?
 
vegas giants said:
So I can bring an uzi on a plane?
Click to expand...

Well if everybody does then any problems should take care of themselves.

But seriously its a private place, so its owners can decide what you can and can't bring.

I'm a "heinleiner" I think we should go armed and be able to challenge each other to duels. Sure would cut down on assholes.
 
What if...? said:
The wording is pretty clear.

It refers to the right itself not being infringed.

I believe the founders were attempting two things.

Keep the state from disarming the people, a primary method of imposing tyranny.

Make our military purely defensive, to prevent us from imposing tyranny ourselves on others. To curtail the "urge to empire".
Click to expand...

well let me ask you a question then since your contributions seem pretty thoughtful

do you believe that a person, after being convicted in a competent court of law, can be deprived of certain constitutional rights? for example, being imprisoned prevents you from exercising the right of assembly. Being a sex offender also does even if you are not currently incarcerated.

Now I believe state governments have the power-though in many cases I disapprove of its exercise-to ban convicted felons of being able to vote, hold public office, or possess firearms. I have been called a "gun banner" for that by someone who not only believes that the state (and the federal government) has the power to ban felons from owning guns, said individual also believes that the federal government should pass additional laws that are designed to prevent private citizens from "unknowingly" selling firearms to convicts. Would you consider that person a gun banner as well?
 
Rucker61 said:
My interpretation is that he said that Heller was flawed. You jumped in with a post suggesting that he was saying that the individual right decision was the flaw, but it seems clear from his posting history that the wording on allowable restrictions is flawed.
Click to expand...

yep, I assert that the federal government has almost no authority in this area. I don't believe it has the authority to regulate private citizens acting within their own states. that includes a felon buying a firearm from a dealer in his state. I believe the state has the power to regulate that activity. I gray area is the federal government banning someone who has a felony from having an FFL but I don't believe that someone selling firearms in his own state should require a federal license
 
TurtleDude said:
well let me ask you a question then since your contributions seem pretty thoughtful

do you believe that a person, after being convicted in a competent court of law, can be deprived of certain constitutional rights? for example, being imprisoned prevents you from exercising the right of assembly. Being a sex offender also does even if you are not currently incarcerated.

Now I believe state governments have the power-though in many cases I disapprove of its exercise-to ban convicted felons of being able to vote, hold public office, or possess firearms. I have been called a "gun banner" for that by someone who not only believes that the state (and the federal government) has the power to ban felons from owning guns, said individual also believes that the federal government should pass additional laws that are designed to prevent private citizens from "unknowingly" selling firearms to convicts. Would you consider that person a gun banner as well?
Click to expand...

All my ethics are situational, and I tend to consider laws "suggestions". That said I agree with most and so therefore comply.

Now, as a non-violent federal felon, no weapons involved, I disagree with my permanent federal ban. Its arbitrary. One can get a felony for driving too fast.

However, I could see the reasoning behind stripping the right to bear from someone who used a firearm in the commission of a crime. Clearly demonstrating they can't be trusted not to abuse the right to have a firearm.

So I don't have a good answer. I disagree with the fundamental premise. That all "criminals" should never be allowed to have firearms.

Also, there are so many unregistered guns here it doesn't really matter. And one can make one if they really want to.

So its just another pointless gesture.

There's a lot of noise on the left on this point. But most of it is all noise and thunder signifying nothing. Gestures that look good on TV and that's about it.

So I guess I say he's a "slow banner". It was really over the day they required registration. If they know where they are they're just allowing you to keep them.

They can come and get them whenever they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom