• 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!

Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity since Parkland shooting

Infringement on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments.
 
apdst said:
Infringement on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you meant to say "regulating" the 2nd amendment...as is a well regulated militia...
 
Vadinho said:
Perhaps you meant to say "regulating" the 2nd amendment...as is a well regulated militia...
Click to expand...

No. I meant "infringe"...as in the right to keep and bear arms is being infringed, along with the other amendments I listed. Maybe even the 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments, too; depending on how the illegal confiscations are carried out.
 
Vadinho said:
Perhaps you meant to say "regulating" the 2nd amendment...as is a well regulated militia...
Click to expand...

oh dear-another leftist who hasn't a clue about the second amendment. He is claiming that the second amendment gives the federal government some additional powers not specified in Article One Section 8
 
TurtleDude said:
oh dear-another leftist who hasn't a clue about the second amendment. He is claiming that the second amendment gives the federal government some additional powers not specified in Article One Section 8
Click to expand...

Which additional powers are you intending to claim are exempt from the term "well-regulated"?
 
apdst said:
No. I meant "infringe"...as in the right to keep and bear arms is being infringed, along with the other amendments I listed. Maybe even the 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments, too; depending on how the illegal confiscations are carried out.
Click to expand...

6th:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Educate me, how is this amendment being infringed?

Or the 7th:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

or the 8th:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
 
Vadinho said:
Which additional powers are you intending to claim are exempt from the term "well-regulated"?
Click to expand...

are you claiming that the second amendment was intended to give the federal government additional powers-since Article One Section 8 says nothing about any federal gun control powers? are you so ignorant of constitutional scholarship that you think "well regulated militia" somehow means federal gun control powers?
 
Vadinho said:
6th:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Educate me, how is this amendment being infringed?

Or the 7th:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

or the 8th:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Click to expand...

I said possibly infringed.

The 6th, 7th and 8th Amendments were infringed in Maryland a while back when cops showed up to Gary Willis's home and executed him.

Redirect Notice
 
If only republicons cared about the right to privacy as much as they cared about the right to own guns.

If only.

2020 is coming.
 
Obscurity said:
If only republicons cared about the right to privacy as much as they cared about the right to own guns.

If only.

2020 is coming.
Click to expand...

if only left-wingers who claim to be independents, cared about the bill of rights and the rights actually enumerated as they do for court created rights to abortion and homosexual relationships.
 
Obscurity said:
If only republicons cared about the right to privacy as much as they cared about the right to own guns.

If only.

2020 is coming.
Click to expand...

What are you referring to?
 
TurtleDude said:
are you claiming that the second amendment was intended to give the federal government additional powers-since Article One Section 8 says nothing about any federal gun control powers? are you so ignorant of constitutional scholarship that you think "well regulated militia" somehow means federal gun control powers?
Click to expand...

I merely asked you why you believe that the 2nd amendment does not provide the government the power to regulate arms. Article 1, section 8 is rather lengthy but let me note the following express power granted in this section:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Now let me ask you once again, does the federal government have the power to regulate the militia using the 2nd amendment and article 1, section 8?
 
TurtleDude said:
if only left-wingers who claim to be independents, cared about the bill of rights and the rights actually enumerated as they do for court created rights to abortion and homosexual relationships.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what an independent is. I care about my rights, to own guns and have privacy.

I dislike democrats and republicans.

I am an independent.

You call me a lib because I'm not a con. I am not a con. And I will never, ever vote for a con. Or a dim.
 
Vadinho said:
I merely asked you why you believe that the 2nd amendment does not provide the government the power to regulate arms. Article 1, section 8 is rather lengthy but let me note the following express power granted in this section:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Now let me ask you once again, does the federal government have the power to regulate the militia using the 2nd amendment and article 1, section 8?
Click to expand...

The government doesn't have the authority to regulate firearms ownership.
 
Vadinho said:
I merely asked you why you believe that the 2nd amendment does not provide the government the power to regulate arms. Article 1, section 8 is rather lengthy but let me note the following express power granted in this section:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Now let me ask you once again, does the federal government have the power to regulate the militia using the 2nd amendment and article 1, section 8?
Click to expand...

the second amendment is merely a negative restriction upon a federal government that was never intended to have any powers to regulate what sort of arms private citizens could own
 
Obscurity said:
You don't understand what an independent is. I care about my rights, to own guns and have privacy.

I dislike democrats and republicans.

I am an independent.

You call me a lib because I'm not a con. I am not a con. And I will never, ever vote for a con. Or a dim.
Click to expand...

I sure don't see much coming from you that suggests you oppose federal interference with your right to keep and bear arms
 
TurtleDude said:
the second amendment is merely a negative restriction upon a federal government that was never intended to have any powers to regulate what sort of arms private citizens could own
Click to expand...

Really? The history of the amendment is pretty easy to look up. It was a guarantee that state militias could not be disarmed by the federal government. The worry was that the North could commandeer southern militias or forbid them from existing as a separate armed force among other things. Here is the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The third word is "regulated".
 
apdst said:
The government doesn't have the authority to regulate firearms ownership.
Click to expand...

It sure does. Even Heller admits that the federal government has the right to regulate arms. Can you own any weapon you want including any weapon used by the military? No. So how it only leaves us with which weapons they can forbid us. Remember, we did have an assault weapons ban for a long time and it was not ruled unconstitutional, it merely lapsed.
 
Vadinho said:
Really? The history of the amendment is pretty easy to look up. It was a guarantee that state militias could not be disarmed by the federal government. The worry was that the North could commandeer southern militias or forbid them from existing as a separate armed force among other things. Here is the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The third word is "regulated".
Click to expand...

It guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
Vadinho said:
Really? The history of the amendment is pretty easy to look up. It was a guarantee that state militias could not be disarmed by the federal government. The worry was that the North could commandeer southern militias or forbid them from existing as a separate armed force among other things. Here is the 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The third word is "regulated".
Click to expand...

you're completely wrong. the purpose of the second amendment was to guarantee a right the founders believed had been endowed to man by the creator-a right the founders believed pre-existed government (See Cruikshank). that was a right to self defense and such right did not require membership in a government created or regulated entity (militia) to vest.
 
Vadinho said:
It sure does. Even Heller admits that the federal government has the right to regulate arms. Can you own any weapon you want including any weapon used by the military? No. So how it only leaves us with which weapons they can forbid us. Remember, we did have an assault weapons ban for a long time and it was not ruled unconstitutional, it merely lapsed.
Click to expand...

Scalia's dicta was intended to get the erratic Kennedy on board and it mainly speaks of state powers. The chicago and DC gun bans lasted longer than the idiotic Clinton gun ban-both were struck down
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom