• 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:

haymarket said:
All can be used to impact legislation on firearms.
Click to expand...

Let's take, say, the power to regulate commerce among the several states. How does this power justify legislation restricting what the people of the several states may possess? How exactly?
 
Last edited:
Beowulf said:
Let's take, say, the power to regulate commerce among the several states. How does this power justify legislation restricting what the people of the several states may possess? How exactly?
Click to expand...

Guns are part of commerce.
 
haymarket said:
Guns are part of commerce.
Click to expand...

Commerce is buying and selling. Possessing an item is neither buying nor selling. Therefore legislation regarding buying and selling obviously cannot refer to possessing an item.
 
Beowulf said:
Commerce is buying and selling. Possessing an item is neither buying nor selling. Therefore legislation regarding buying and selling obviously cannot refer to possessing an item.
Click to expand...

How do you think one acquires it?
 
haymarket said:
How do you think one acquires it?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The power applies only to commerce among the several states. Are you a state? I know that I'm certainly not a state. Therefore the power doesn't apply to either of us.
 
Beowulf said:
Irrelevant. The power applies only to commerce among the several states. Are you a state? I know that I'm certainly not a state. Therefore the power doesn't apply to either of us.
Click to expand...

The people comprise the state. Take away the people, and the states fail to exist.
 
haymarket said:
The people comprise the state. Take away the people, and the states fail to exist.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. But don't bogart that dube.

So we all can see that that article one, section eight, clause three applies to states. Commerce among the several states.

Can you, for the class, please define commerce?
 
Beowulf said:
Fascinating. But don't bogart that dube.

So we all can see that that article one, section eight, clause three applies to states. Commerce among the several states.

Can you, for the class, please define commerce?
Click to expand...

Your comment ignores my response that it is the people who comprise the states and take way the people there are no states.
 
haymarket said:
Your comment ignores my response that it is the people who comprise the states and take way the people there are no states.
Click to expand...

Yes. Sovereign states are comprised of people.

Can you, for the class, please define commerce?
 
Beowulf said:
Yes. Sovereign states are comprised of people.

Can you, for the class, please define commerce?
Click to expand...

You already know what commerce is. It is when people engage in the exchange of goods or products for other goods or services or money or some other interest. Firearms would most definitely be included.

But then you already know this so why ask in the first place?
 
haymarket said:
You already know what commerce is. It is when people engage in the exchange of goods or products for other goods or services or money or some other interest. Firearms would most definitely be included.

But then you already know this so why ask in the first place?
Click to expand...

Right. Commerce is the exchange of goods, products, or services. We agree.

So we can clearly state that possessing something is neither the exchange of goods, products, or services.

And can you, for the class, tell us which particular commerce congress may regulate? May it regulate any and all commerce?
 
Beowulf said:
Irrelevant. The power applies only to commerce among the several states. Are you a state? I know that I'm certainly not a state. Therefore the power doesn't apply to either of us.
Click to expand...

you find it irrelevant that one must have possession of interest in an item before being able to engage in the transaction of it
an absurd notion which has no basis in economics
your post would pretend that there are no guns which cross state lines, thereby being subjected to provisions controlling interstate commerce
 
justabubba said:
you find it irrelevant that one must have possession of interest in an item before being able to engage in the transaction of it
an absurd notion which has no basis in economics
your post would pretend that there are no guns which cross state lines, thereby being subjected to provisions controlling interstate commerce
Click to expand...

If I possess a thing, does that mean that I am engaged in commerce among the states?

Or to put it another way, is possessing a thing commerce among the states?
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I'd say rich white democrats are more responsible for the current problems blacks face in the USA now than the GOP is
Click to expand...

Some of the woes of blacks have to be blamed on black culture. The refusal to maintain 2 parent families. The acceptance of recreational sex and the acceptance of abortion. No emphasis on education. Having too many fatty foods in their diets. Wrong leadership and that wrong leadership and 'neighbor pressure' taking the place of thinking for oneself, etc.

For blacks to become a successful culture, these, for example, have to be changed.
 
Last edited:
Beowulf said:
If I possess a thing, does that mean that I am engaged in commerce among the states?

Or to put it another way, is possessing a thing commerce?
Click to expand...
let's see what has already been discussed in regards to the regulation of goods [guns for the purposes of this thread]:

Beowulf said:
Let's take, say, the power to regulate commerce among the several states. How does this power justify legislation restricting what the people of the several states may possess? How exactly?
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
Guns are part of commerce.
Click to expand...

Beowulf said:
Irrelevant. The power applies only to commerce among the several states. Are you a state? I know that I'm certainly not a state. Therefore the power doesn't apply to either of us.
Click to expand...

justabubba said:
you find it irrelevant that one must have possession of interest in an item before being able to engage in the transaction of it
an absurd notion which has no basis in economics
your post would pretend that there are no guns which cross state lines, thereby being subjected to provisions controlling interstate commerce
Click to expand...

Beowulf said:
If I possess a thing, does that mean that I am engaged in commerce among the states?

Or to put it another way, is possessing a thing commerce?
Click to expand...

now that your views have been painted into a corner, where anyone with comprehension ability could see that an authority to regulate interstate commerce then also applies to the regulation of guns, you have attempted to pivot into a diversion of questions asking whether mere possession constitutes interstate commerce. and the answer to that question is "no". however, any competent reader already recognizes that interstate commerce, being subjected to the regulation of the trading of goods and services, must then also include the regulation of guns which are a part of that commerce
 
justabubba said:
now that your views have been painted into a corner, where anyone with comprehension ability could see that an authority to regulate interstate commerce then also applies to the regulation of guns, you have attempted to pivot into a diversion of questions asking whether mere possession constitutes interstate commerce. and the answer to that question is "no". however, any competent reader already recognizes that interstate commerce, being subjected to the regulation of the trading of goods and services, must then also include the regulation of guns which are a part of that commerce
Click to expand...

Is the possession of an item commerce?
 
Beowulf said:
Is the possession of an item commerce?
Click to expand...

when that possessed item is being transacted across state lines it is subjected to interstate commerce provisions
what part of that reality do you not understand?
 
justabubba said:
when that possessed item is being transacted across state lines it is subjected to interstate commerce provisions
what part of that reality do you not understand?
Click to expand...

Who said that it was being transacted across state lines?

Is the possession of an item commerce or not?
 
Beowulf said:
Who said that it was being transacted across state lines?
Click to expand...

you are welcome to show us proof that guns are never transacted across state lines. i welcome your showing of such a conclusion
 
justabubba said:
you are welcome to show us proof that guns are never transacted across state lines. i welcome your showing of such a conclusion
Click to expand...

What does it matter? Congress only has the authority to regulate commerce among the several states. Are you a state?
 
Beowulf said:
What does it matter? Congress only has the authority to regulate commerce among the several states. Are you a state?
Click to expand...

whether i am a state is immaterial to a discussion of the regulation of interstate commerce. what is significant is that guns can be and are transacted across state lines, making them subject to interstate commerce regulations

now, for your argument to have any basis all you have to do is show us that guns are never transacted across state lines and therefor not subject to interstate commerce provisions. i look forward to your showing us proof that no such transactions occur
 
justabubba said:
whether i am a state is immaterial to a discussion of the regulation of interstate commerce.
Click to expand...
"Interstate commerce"? I can't find that phrase in the constitution.
what is significant is that guns can be and are transacted across state lines, making them subject to interstate commerce regulations

now, for your argument to have any basis all you have to do is show us that guns are never transacted across state lines and therefor not subject to interstate commerce provisions. i look forward to your showing us proof that no such transactions occur
Click to expand...
Okay, what sort of regulations would you suggest that states comply with when they buy or sell guns among themselves?
 
Beowulf said:
Who said that it was being transacted across state lines?

Is the possession of an item commerce or not?
Click to expand...

Justabubba apparently is unaware that the USSC rolled back the idiotic expansion of the commerce clause with the Lopez decision. BTW the real idiocy is that stench of the FDR corruption of federalism, allows the federal government to ban an Ohio machinist from making a suppressor or machine gun for his own use in Ohio-it goes back to the nonsense of Wickard v Filburn
 
TurtleDude said:
Justabubba apparently is unaware that the USSC rolled back the idiotic expansion of the commerce clause with the Lopez decision. BTW the real idiocy is that stench of the FDR corruption of federalism, allows the federal government to ban an Ohio machinist from making a suppressor or machine gun for his own use in Ohio-it goes back to the nonsense of Wickard v Filburn
Click to expand...

I think justabubba simply doesn't know what commerce means, or what a state is.
 
Beowulf said:
I think justabubba simply doesn't know what commerce means, or what a state is.
Click to expand...

The lapdog justices in 1939 or so didn't either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom