• 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!

[W:1311]The Second Amendment - A Military Right to Bear Arms

ttwtt78640 said:
There simply is no limit on federal power unless the SCOTUS elects to impose it and they are under no Constitutional obligation to do so. That was my entire point. The fantasy that the federal government may (must?) not exceed its enumerated Constitutional powers has long since disappeared.
Click to expand...

No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States.
 
haymarket said:
You offer no proof for any of these attacks. No proof at all.

Why are you so angry that this is your normal MO?
Click to expand...

You love statist power.
You are advocating violation of individual freedoms by using government power to force compliance against the established checks and balances from SCOTUS.

You spit on individual rights.
You seek to violate the 2nd, 4th and 10th amendments of the Constitution and want to ignore the incorporation clause of the 14th.

You champion collective power.
You believe individual rights are a function of society rather than individuals, that is powers flow from state social contract rather than from the people, government is a concession, not an all encompassing thing.

You think constitutional law is irrelevant to legislative process.
You have stated over and over, SCOTUS can change its mind, ignoring current decisions. Legislation must be pursuant to current Constitutional decisions by SCOTUS or the judicial committee will not pass it.

You ignore precedent whenever it suits you.
You routinely ignore Heller and Miller as well as Caetano, Cruikshank and MacDonald. They establish the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and this leads to the next point...

You lie about legal terminology.
Common use is a specific legal term referring to the lawful and legal use of a firearm and not an esoteric, specific use that is criminal in nature, it has jack all to do with how many are in circulation.

You engage in circular arguments.
You posit a term like common use, you are told what it means specific to the 2nd amendment and you state SCOTUS can change its mind, it is noted that precedent would stray from that, you state it can happen and go right on using an utterly false term. You will circle these points over and over and over, despite being shown you are engaging in an untrue argument.

You don't believe in consent of the governed.
Repeated attempts to even get you to engage a conversation about this political concept which is at the core of US government, you fail to address it at all. Government is beholden to the people, government is constrained by the Constitution; the Constitution lays out rights people should have to in order to exercise freedom and consent to a government, not to establish government power but to establish where it cannot go.

You actively seek confiscation.
Being forced to sell property under threat of government action is not a buyback, it is confiscation.

You seek law that would turn gun owners into criminals.
You have said yourself if they don't comply with your confiscation schemes they will become criminals because they refuse to abandon their RTKBA.

You seek to circumvent due process.
You want registration to get a list to seek buybacks and legislation to eliminate weapons from citizens without due process to remove their rights.

You seek to circumvent 4th amendment search and seizure barriers.
Federal and state databases of gun owners obtained through registration is not allowed because it is tracking citizens against their will and violates the exercise of their rights, establishing these databases for the purposes of buybacks or establishing who has what guns violates the law against searches, if the government wants that information they need to establish reason for a warrant to file a warrant.
 
haymarket said:
You offer no proof for any of these attacks. No proof at all.
Click to expand...

Follow up, you asked for this, time to stop lying about what you have posted, voted for, and said:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/poll-13071-which-these-gun-measures-do-you-support.html
Voted for all items except excessive taxation, meaning assault ban, registration, special insurance, and micro stamping (so worthless its not admissible in court as evidence)

haymarket said:
My reason for supporting things like registrations and universal background checks and limitations on magazine size IS NOT BASED ON ANY ABILITY TO REDUCE CRIME.

If I and the majority of others want to live in a society where one cannot have automatic weapons - that is our right as a people.
If I and the majority of others want to live in a society where one must pass a background check to buy any firearm from any person - that is our right as a people.
If I and the majority of others want to live in a society where there is a reasonable limit on the size of gun magazines - that is our right as a people.

All those things are more than constitutional providing the right to keep and bear arms can be exercised and enjoyed by the American people.
Click to expand...

Never mind that it violates current law. Never mind that we have background checks ALREADY.

haymarket said:
Your reply and lack of understanding that the M4 is far from common says otherwise. It appears pride is getting in the way of rational discussion. And that is never good.

Simply accept that you were wrong about this M4 being in common use and move on.
Click to expand...

Common use has a meaning in Constitutional Dicta, he doesn't need to learn it, YOU DO. It has literally nothing to do with percentages, it has to do with legal, lawful use by US citizens. This is not a moveable meaning, it has a term specifically to legal status of firearms and not whatever argument wanders through your head!

haymarket said:
NO. I am going with the one with both agreed to.

As to your opinion about "to violate" - could you explain to us how if you have a pistol in your right hand and a pistol in your left hand and you have 998 more around you, asking you to wait a couple of days to buy number 1,001 is somehow denying you the right to keep and bear arms?

The same with registrations which deny you nothing.

The same with ID numbers on bullets. They deny you nothing.
Click to expand...

Registrations are a violation of government into the rights of citizens. It presumes guilt and circumvents due process, the government has no right to keep a database of innocent people exercising their rights. Secondly if you establish a limitation on the number of firearms being used, government can logically argue to reduce that number to one, and the same with magazine capacity.

haymarket said:
Chicago is not an isolated island. But then, you know that because you live there.

Can legislation help in limiting the availability of certain weapons available to the wanna be mass killer?
Click to expand...

You seek a broad mandate to limit the availability of weapons in the hope to catch a killer when you know it wont do such and will violate the rights of millions of innocent citizens. But...I thought it wasn't about crime?

haymarket said:
The Second Amendment is very clear: the right to keep and bear arms is protected. It says absolutely nothing about protecting any specific weapon, type of weapon, style of weapon or anything else other than the government cannot create an environment where a citizen can no longer exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Oh, look, a blank check on gun control.

Yep, my town was hit by a tornado, and people like you seek to disarm the people wanting to protect their few belongings left to them from looters because emergency services and police are completely overloaded. That makes me incredibly angry. You want a need for firearms; you have it.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You love statist power.
You are advocating violation of individual freedoms by using government power to force compliance against the established checks and balances from SCOTUS.

You spit on individual rights.
You seek to violate the 2nd, 4th and 10th amendments of the Constitution and want to ignore the incorporation clause of the 14th.

You champion collective power.
You believe individual rights are a function of society rather than individuals, that is powers flow from state social contract rather than from the people, government is a concession, not an all encompassing thing.

You think constitutional law is irrelevant to legislative process.
You have stated over and over, SCOTUS can change its mind, ignoring current decisions. Legislation must be pursuant to current Constitutional decisions by SCOTUS or the judicial committee will not pass it.

You ignore precedent whenever it suits you.
You routinely ignore Heller and Miller as well as Caetano, Cruikshank and MacDonald. They establish the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and this leads to the next point...

You lie about legal terminology.
Common use is a specific legal term referring to the lawful and legal use of a firearm and not an esoteric, specific use that is criminal in nature, it has jack all to do with how many are in circulation.

You engage in circular arguments.
You posit a term like common use, you are told what it means specific to the 2nd amendment and you state SCOTUS can change its mind, it is noted that precedent would stray from that, you state it can happen and go right on using an utterly false term. You will circle these points over and over and over, despite being shown you are engaging in an untrue argument.

You don't believe in consent of the governed.
Repeated attempts to even get you to engage a conversation about this political concept which is at the core of US government, you fail to address it at all. Government is beholden to the people, government is constrained by the Constitution; the Constitution lays out rights people should have to in order to exercise freedom and consent to a government, not to establish government power but to establish where it cannot go.

You actively seek confiscation.
Being forced to sell property under threat of government action is not a buyback, it is confiscation.

You seek law that would turn gun owners into criminals.
You have said yourself if they don't comply with your confiscation schemes they will become criminals because they refuse to abandon their RTKBA.

You seek to circumvent due process.
You want registration to get a list to seek buybacks and legislation to eliminate weapons from citizens without due process to remove their rights.

You seek to circumvent 4th amendment search and seizure barriers.
Federal and state databases of gun owners obtained through registration is not allowed because it is tracking citizens against their will and violates the exercise of their rights, establishing these databases for the purposes of buybacks or establishing who has what guns violates the law against searches, if the government wants that information they need to establish reason for a warrant to file a warrant.
Click to expand...

Not one thing in there was myself speaking for myself and my own views.

You lose and lose big.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Follow up, you asked for this, time to stop lying about what you have posted, voted for, and said:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/poll-13071-which-these-gun-measures-do-you-support.html
Voted for all items except excessive taxation, meaning assault ban, registration, special insurance, and micro stamping (so worthless its not admissible in court as evidence)



Never mind that it violates current law. Never mind that we have background checks ALREADY.



Common use has a meaning in Constitutional Dicta, he doesn't need to learn it, YOU DO. It has literally nothing to do with percentages, it has to do with legal, lawful use by US citizens. This is not a moveable meaning, it has a term specifically to legal status of firearms and not whatever argument wanders through your head!



Registrations are a violation of government into the rights of citizens. It presumes guilt and circumvents due process, the government has no right to keep a database of innocent people exercising their rights. Secondly if you establish a limitation on the number of firearms being used, government can logically argue to reduce that number to one, and the same with magazine capacity.



You seek a broad mandate to limit the availability of weapons in the hope to catch a killer when you know it wont do such and will violate the rights of millions of innocent citizens. But...I thought it wasn't about crime?



Oh, look, a blank check on gun control.

Yep, my town was hit by a tornado, and people like you seek to disarm the people wanting to protect their few belongings left to them from looters because emergency services and police are completely overloaded. That makes me incredibly angry. You want a need for firearms; you have it.
Click to expand...

Not one I said there in any of those quotes denies anyone the right granted by The Second Amendment.

I am proud of every one of those statements and stand behind them.
 
haymarket said:
Not one I said there in any of those quotes denies anyone the right granted by The Second Amendment.

I am proud of every one of those statements and stand behind them.
Click to expand...

Your posting history and this statement are at odds with one another, it suggests intellectual fraud and personal denial of culpability in your previous statements.

Everyone can see just how phony and convoluted your reasoning and arguments are. Stating something over and over when you have advocated something nearly the opposite isn't going to convince anyone. I don't think anyone on this board believes you truly want to protect 2nd Amendment rights...except you. Watch out for that self deception, it isn't good for you.
 
haymarket said:
Not one thing in there was myself speaking for myself and my own views.

You lose and lose big.
Click to expand...

Take posts 2728 and 2729 together and they provide your own words. Quit trying to twist the obvious. I provided your quotes as well as what they are advocating. You are denying your past arguments, you are welcome to explain or look like you are terrible at lying, your choice.
 
haymarket said:
You post makes no sense s a rational reply to the post from me which you reproduced and then pretended to be replying to. There are a vast myriad of normal non semi-automatic rifles which are perfectly capable of firing multiple shots before having to reload. That negates the reason given for an AR15.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you claim it, the argument is not simply about being able to repeat a shot. You’re claiming your opponents are, when no one has. The very definition of a strawman.
 
haymarket said:
The Second Amendment did not repeal or negate any of the clauses in the constitution that I provided for you as a basis for regulating firearms.
Click to expand...

None of those clauses form a basis for regulating firearms. And any power you and other Statists fabricate out of whole cloth is in fact negated by the 2A. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

It also says we should execute traitors.

I’d wish we’d start following that part far more often.
 
haymarket said:
There are a large variety of non semi-automatic rifles that are perfectly capable of firing more than one shot before having to reload. That negates the reason given by some here for the need for an AR15.
Click to expand...

Being capable of repeating a shot is not equivalent in being capable of assisting in depending ones life.

Conflation is irrational.
 
Aberration said:
None of those clauses form a basis for regulating firearms. And any power you and other Statists fabricate out of whole cloth is in fact negated by the 2A. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

It also says we should execute traitors.

I’d wish we’d start following that part far more often.
Click to expand...

I wish we would execute traitors also - lets being with the one in the White House who conspired with our main adversary to steal the election.
 
Aberration said:
No matter how many times you claim it, the argument is not simply about being able to repeat a shot. You’re claiming your opponents are, when no one has. The very definition of a strawman.
Click to expand...

That is patently false. Here is another poster

Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
He already answered: "Sometimes you miss, sometimes you need more than one. "
Click to expand...

Almost any modern rifle from the past half century is capable of firing more than the one shot referred to in the post.

There is no straw man. I was replying to an argument made right here.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Take posts 2728 and 2729 together and they provide your own words. Quit trying to twist the obvious. I provided your quotes as well as what they are advocating. You are denying your past arguments, you are welcome to explain or look like you are terrible at lying, your choice.
Click to expand...

I am NOT denying any past argument. I am proud of each one of them and stand behind them.

And nothing in my words would take away the right of an American citizen to keep and bear arms.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Your posting history and this statement are at odds with one another, it suggests intellectual fraud and personal denial of culpability in your previous statements.

Everyone can see just how phony and convoluted your reasoning and arguments are. Stating something over and over when you have advocated something nearly the opposite isn't going to convince anyone. I don't think anyone on this board believes you truly want to protect 2nd Amendment rights...except you. Watch out for that self deception, it isn't good for you.
Click to expand...

What people want to believe because it agrees with their political bias is their problem. Nothing I said in the post you quoted would deny any American the right to keep and bear arms.
 
haymarket said:
I am NOT denying any past argument. I am proud of each one of them and stand behind them.

And nothing in my words would take away the right of an American citizen to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Except, you know, most of them. You are a gun grabber, quit trying to pretty it up and lie about it.
 
haymarket said:
What people want to believe because it agrees with their political bias is their problem. Nothing I said in the post you quoted would deny any American the right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

The political bias is yours, just like the denial. You are a gun grabber, you advocate gun control and infringing on the 2nd Amendment.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Except, you know, most of them. You are a gun grabber, quit trying to pretty it up and lie about it.
Click to expand...

yeah- me and Ronald Reagan, who was named and honored as a lifetime friend of the NRA. :lol:;):roll:

Engaging in silly name calling is not debate.
 
haymarket said:
yeah- me and Ronald Reagan, who was named and honored as a lifetime friend of the NRA. :lol:;):roll:

Engaging in silly name calling is not debate.
Click to expand...

You want confiscation, you spelled it out, you just cant be honest and call it what it is.
Same for registration, and any number of anti 2nd amendment policies you have endorsed.
 
OpportunityCost said:
You want confiscation, you spelled it out, you just cant be honest and call it what it is.
Same for registration, and any number of anti 2nd amendment policies you have endorsed.
Click to expand...

Me and Ronald Reagan . :lol::mrgreen::roll::lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom