• 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:898]The Right To keep and Bear Arms Is Quite Clear:

Beowulf said:
Because the general government has committed them. Who is going to countermand the general government?
Click to expand...

the federal courts, when an unConstitutional action is brought before them for the court's review

the court gets to split the baby on such issues

and the court seldom moves against gun control policy legislated by the congress
 
haymarket said:
I am nor arguing the decision of the Supreme Court.That can change over time. I am giving you what the Constitution says.
Click to expand...

The US Constitution says that our individual right to "keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Every form of gun control is a restriction and therefore an infringement against an individual right. That is what the US Constitution actually says, verbatum.
 
Glitch said:
The US Constitution says that our individual right to "keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Every form of gun control is a restriction and therefore an infringement against an individual right. That is what the US Constitution actually says, verbatum.
Click to expand...

A reasonable restriction on some aspect of weapons is NOT an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. As long as the right can be exercised, it is meeting the words and intent of the Constitution.
 
justabubba said:
there was no FDR nonsense
Click to expand...
You are very much mistaken. FDR and the NRA were involved in the creation of both the National Firearms Act of 1934 and Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Both bills were primarily a means of generating revenue, rather than controlling firearms, but they both seriously violate the Second Amendment.

justabubba said:
in short, gun control legislation has succeeded because such legislation was found to be consistent with Constitutional law
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The Supreme Court began by tossing the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, then further ruled DC's gun control regulation violated the US Constitution. Later the same year as the Heller decision, the Supreme Court would also toss out Chicago's unconstitutional gun control legislation. Every where that gun control has been challenged to the Supreme Court, it has lost.
 
haymarket said:
A reasonable restriction on some aspect of weapons is NOT an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. As long as the right can be exercised, it is meeting the words and intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "reasonable" restriction. Any and all restrictions, whether you deem them "reasonable" or otherwise, is an infringement. Do you think we should put "reasonable restrictions" on what people believe, or with whom they can associate? Why would you want to restrict the individual right to "keep and bear arms" when you wouldn't restrict any other individual right?
 
Glitch said:
There is no such thing as a "reasonable" restriction.
Click to expand...

Restrict other rights? You mean like voting?

As to not allowing restrictions - History says otherwise.

Common sense says otherwise.

The law says otherwise.

The Second Amendment is the Second Amendment. Please do not commit the dishonest sin of confusing it with tray other.
 
justabubba said:
for someone who tells us they formerly worked for the DOJ, your post shows a mighty deficient understanding of that federal organization

there was no FDR nonsense

democrats did NOT appoint every federal judge for two decades

and conservative judges followed sound precedent, otherwise they would not have followed it

in short, gun control legislation has succeeded because such legislation was found to be consistent with Constitutional law
Click to expand...

FDR was the president from 1933 and after he died, Truman was the president until 1953. So who else appointed federal judges in that 20 year period?
 
Glitch said:
The US Constitution says that our individual right to "keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Every form of gun control is a restriction and therefore an infringement against an individual right. That is what the US Constitution actually says, verbatum.
Click to expand...

that's like pretending not being legally able to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is an infringement of the right to free speech

that we remain legally able to bear arms despite compliance with existing gun controls should be sufficient for any reasonable person to recognize your argument is a bogus one

allow me to extend kudos for your chosen forum pseudonym
 
justabubba said:
that's like pretending not being legally able to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is an infringement of the right to free speech

that we remain legally able to bear arms despite compliance with existing gun controls should be sufficient for any reasonable person to recognize your argument is a bogus one

allow me to extend kudos for your chosen forum pseudonym
Click to expand...

You constantly confuse USE vs Possession restrictions. Shouting "fire" falsely in a crowded theater is akin to firing a weapon for improper reasons in a crowded theater. NO second amendment advocate I know of-or have heard of-would claim the second amendment protects shooting firearms in a crowded theater-short of defending one's life. What you gun banners seek is akin to saying a person COULD NEVER shout FIRE in any place or for any reason.
 
justabubba said:
that's like pretending not being legally able to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is an infringement of the right to free speech

that we remain legally able to bear arms despite compliance with existing gun controls should be sufficient for any reasonable person to recognize your argument is a bogus one

allow me to extend kudos for your chosen forum pseudonym
Click to expand...

I can legally shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and it is not an infringement of my right to free speech. There is no law that prevents it. You obviously have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
 
TurtleDude said:
You constantly confuse USE vs Possession restrictions. Shouting "fire" falsely in a crowded theater is akin to firing a weapon for improper reasons in a crowded theater. NO second amendment advocate I know of-or have heard of-would claim the second amendment protects shooting firearms in a crowded theater-short of defending one's life. What you gun banners seek is akin to saying a person COULD NEVER shout FIRE in any place or for any reason.
Click to expand...

you again illustrate that you fail to understand the comparison of Constitutional laws not being infringed
one's right to free speech can be limited for the greater public good, such as the illegality of shouting 'fire' previously articulated
just as our right to bear arms can be limited by reasonable gun control, again, for the greater public good
in neither instance were the individual's Constitutional rights impeded

no student would be able to survive their first year of law school without being able to comprehend this fundamental truth
 
Glitch said:
I can legally shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and it is not an infringement of my right to free speech. There is no law that prevents it. You obviously have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre where there was not one, thereby creating an unfounded public panic, would be found an illegal act

i will invite the forum members to evaluate which of us is without an understanding of this issue
 
justabubba said:
the federal courts, when an unConstitutional action is brought before them for the court's review

the court gets to split the baby on such issues

and the court seldom moves against gun control policy legislated by the congress
Click to expand...

Right. That's what I said. The general government has committed them. I'm glad we agree.
 
haymarket said:
A reasonable restriction on some aspect of weapons is NOT an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. As long as the right can be exercised, it is meeting the words and intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

When the states established the union between themselves, they never gave it plenary power. They gave it a small set of powers. The power to restrict what the people of the several states is not among this small set of powers.
 
justabubba said:
that's like pretending not being legally able to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is an infringement of the right to free speech
Click to expand...

There is nowhere that is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. If your false cries of "fire" create consequences, then those may include criminal charges.

Similarly, there need be no restrictions on gun ownership. Misuse of a firearm is a crime (or tort, depending on the issue) and can be treated as such.
 
justabubba said:
you again illustrate that you fail to understand the comparison of Constitutional laws not being infringed
one's right to free speech can be limited for the greater public good, such as the illegality of shouting 'fire' previously articulated
just as our right to bear arms can be limited by reasonable gun control, again, for the greater public good
in neither instance were the individual's Constitutional rights impeded

no student would be able to survive their first year of law school without being able to comprehend this fundamental truth
Click to expand...

You continue to ignore the obvious-one's USE of firearms can be limited for the good of society and that does not implicate the second amendment. Your concept of what is reasonable is both specious and silly.
 
Beowulf said:
When the states established the union between themselves, they never gave it plenary power. They gave it a small set of powers. The power to restrict what the people of the several states is not among this small set of powers.
Click to expand...

The powers in the Constitution have already been cited.
 
Beowulf said:
Well you certainly cited language. But none of it gives congress the power to restrict what the people of the states may possess.
Click to expand...

Yes it clearly does.
 
haymarket said:
Yes it clearly does.
Click to expand...

The power to tax.

The power to regulate commerce among the several states.

The power to regulate the militia

The power to enact legislation to carry those other three powers into execution.

Nothing in there about limiting what the people of the several states may possess.
 
Beowulf said:
The power to tax.

The power to regulate commerce among the several states.

The power to regulate the militia

The power to enact legislation to carry those other three powers into execution.

Nothing in there about limiting what the people of the several states may possess.
Click to expand...

All can be used to impact legislation on firearms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom