• 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!

Why the Second Amendment Exists.

Howard the Duck said:
Militias as representatives of the American people.
Click to expand...

Lol well them why did they say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed when they meant the rought of the Malitia?

Seems they made a mistake. People and militia, i get those things confused all the time.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Lol well them why did they say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed when they meant the rought of the Malitia?

Seems they made a mistake. People and militia, i get those things confused all the time.
Click to expand...

There's no disconnect. Why the compound sentence when they didn't want the second clause to be connected to the first?
 
Howard the Duck said:
There's no disconnect.
Click to expand...
Between the militia and the people? So people are Malitia? okay, nothing different.

Why the compound sentence when they didn't want the second clause to be connected to the first?
Click to expand...
Well it is an explanation as to why the right of the people exists.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Between the militia and the people? So people are Malitia? okay, nothing different.


Well it is an explanation as to why the right of the people exists.
Click to expand...

No. Militias have the right to own. People have a right to be members of miitias. Individuals didn't the constitutional right to own for over 200 years until Heller. Now the supreme court says individuals have the right to own a gun to DEFEND YOUR HOME.

Lord knows where they get that. Their reading skills suck.
 
Howard the Duck said:
No. Militias have the right to own.
Click to expand...
The right of the PEOPLE To keep and bear arms shall not ngs infringed.

It doesn't say the right of the Malitia.

Individuals didn't until Heller. Now the supreme court says individuals have the right to own a gun to DEFEND YOUR HOME.
Click to expand...
Incorrect the second amendment said the people had the rought upon first being ratified.

Lord knows where they get that. Their reading skills suck.
Click to expand...
The second amendment clearly says the right of the people. The people are people. Not Malitia.

Seems reading skills only suck when they go against gungrabber revisionist hogwash.
 
CLAX1911 said:
The right of the PEOPLE To keep and bear arms shall not ngs infringed.

It doesn't say the right of the Malitia.

Incorrect the second amendment said the people had the rought upon first being ratified.


The second amendment clearly says the right of the people. The people are people. But Malitia.
Click to expand...

You need to, if I might be so bold, go back and study dependent and independent phrases.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So there were rulings with regard to the clause "a well regulated Malitia being necessary to the free state..." without speaking directly about the Malitia?



But if the state can come in and undermine it it's useless.

So you are going to try and tell me that the two phrases contradict each other?



The point being?

I don't read links, and I don't need further explication on irrelevant nonsense.



Throw a fit all you like I'll never click on your links nor will I read them. It isn't my argument that I'm trying to prove so thus i couldn't give a rats furry ass what they say.



I agree with him.

Clearly.

The second amendment doesn't require militia service to keep and bear arms.

It says the right of the people... not the people serving in the Malitia, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is no way to extrapolate a mandate for militia service within the text. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Visbeck wants the government to have the power to ban all sorts of guns and to impose ridiculously restrictive laws upon gun owners. HE thus tries to re-interpret the Second Amendment so it allows every silly gun restriction he supports. He will never ever deal with the fact that the founders never intended that the federal government have any such power. He also won't tell us what the natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second (hint-its a right that does not require membership in a government controlled body to vest)
 
Howard the Duck said:
You need to, if I might be so bold, go back and study dependent and independent phrases.
Click to expand...

you need to study constitutional theory and the writings of the founders and scholars such as ST George Tucker
 
Howard the Duck said:
No. Militias have the right to own. People have a right to be members of miitias. Individuals didn't the constitutional right to own for over 200 years until Heller. Now the supreme court says individuals have the right to own a gun to DEFEND YOUR HOME.

Lord knows where they get that. Their reading skills suck.
Click to expand...

stop lying-that is so stupendously stupid it is laughable. No one even contemplated the federal government being able to tell private citizens what they could do or own via the Commerce Clause until FDR made up that power
 
TurtleDude said:
Visbeck wants the government to have the power to ban all sorts of guns and to impose ridiculously restrictive laws upon gun owners. HE thus tries to re-interpret the Second Amendment so it allows every silly gun restriction he supports.
Click to expand...
These people just go bananas over the mention of the Malitia don't they?

He will never ever deal with the fact that the founders never intended that the federal government have any such power. He also won't tell us what the natural right the founders sought to guarantee with the second (hint-its a right that does not require membership in a government controlled body to vest)
Click to expand...
The sad thing is he thinks this nonsense is intelligent.
 
CLAX1911 said:
These people just go bananas over the mention of the Malitia don't they?


The sad thing is he thinks this nonsense is intelligent.
Click to expand...

He is lying to you. He claims interstate commerce didn't become a constitutional tool until FDR.

He should read the interstate commerce act of 1887 or Gibbons v Ogden from 1824. FDR didn't take office until 1932.

It, as usual, is hard to take him seriously. Don't let him exploit you.
 
Howard the Duck said:
He is lying to you. He claims interstate commerce didn't become a constitutional tool until FDR.
Click to expand...
You are being dishonest too. You are saying people equals Malitia.

He should read the interstate commerce act of 1887 or Gibbons v Ogden from 1824. FDR didn't take office until 1932.
Click to expand...
You should read the second amendment without regressive agendas.

It, as usual, is hard to take him seriously. Don't let him exploit you.
Click to expand...
He is right with regard to the second amendment
 
Howard the Duck said:
He is lying to you. He claims interstate commerce didn't become a constitutional tool until FDR.

He should read the interstate commerce act of 1887 or Gibbons v Ogden from 1824. FDR didn't take office until 1932.

It, as usual, is hard to take him seriously. Don't let him exploit you.
Click to expand...

what law allowed Congress to use the commerce clause to regulate what private citizens did intra-state before the FDR regime

why did it take the federal government 140 years to "discover" it had the power to regulate the ownership of firearms by private citizens
 
CLAX1911 said:
You are being dishonest too. You are saying people equals Malitia.

You should read the second amendment without regressive agendas.

He is right with regard to the second amendment
Click to expand...

Why did it take 221 years for the supreme court to agree?

I know! It took 221 years for the gop to pack the court sufficiently to do the nra's bidding.
 
Howard the Duck said:
He is lying to you. He claims interstate commerce didn't become a constitutional tool until FDR.

He should read the interstate commerce act of 1887 or Gibbons v Ogden from 1824. FDR didn't take office until 1932.

It, as usual, is hard to take him seriously. Don't let him exploit you.
Click to expand...

I laugh at your complete lack of honesty and understanding concerning the second amendment

find me ONE quote or writing from a founder that supports your claims
 
Howard the Duck said:
Why did it take 221 years for the supreme court to agree?

I know! It took 221 years for the gop to pack the court sufficiently to do the nra's bidding.
Click to expand...

I guess you are ignorant of a case in Georgia where the state supreme court struck down a state gun control law based on the second amendment. Are you blind to the fact that for 20 straight years, only Democrats were appointed to every single federal bench in the country? and this was going on while FDR destroyed the tenth amendment while pretending the commerce clause was a proper tool for ignoring the second amendment
 
Howard the Duck said:
Exactly, but not TO one.
Click to expand...

more silliness-so an individual citizen cannot assert -via a "Bivens" suit-claims of degradation of constitutional rights-=such as the fourth amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom