• 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:

TurtleDude said:
I cannot find a single shred of evidence of any intent of the founders to give the federal government even a hint of a power to regulate what private citizens could own.
Click to expand...

It’s right there in Article 1 - in their power to regulate land forces and to enact all law necessary to exercise that authority. I really don’t know why you find this so controversial. We regulate all manner of armament. What difference in the underlying power is there in prohibiting ownership of a nuclear device for example than a gun? The armament may be different, but the underlying power to regulate what the militia possesses is not.
 
Napoleon said:
It’s right there in Article 1 - in their power to regulate land forces and to enact all law necessary to exercise that authority. I really don’t know why you find this so controversial. We regulate all manner of armament. What difference in the underlying power is there in prohibiting ownership of a nuclear device for example than a gun? The armament may be different, but the underlying power to regulate what the militia possesses is not.
Click to expand...

Can you cite the specific language?
 
Napoleon said:
It’s right there in Article 1 - in their power to regulate land forces and to enact all law necessary to exercise that authority. I really don’t know why you find this so controversial. We regulate all manner of armament. What difference in the underlying power is there in prohibiting ownership of a nuclear device for example than a gun? The armament may be different, but the underlying power to regulate what the militia possesses is not.
Click to expand...


that's nonsensical-it gives congress the power to regulate those in active service-not to regulate private citizens in the several states

NO ONE denies that congress can tell those serving in a federal armed force where they have to be, and what uniform they have to wear. Using your logic-that gives congress the power to tell me or my wife where we have to be or what we have to wear.

BTW Nukes are not weapons citizens would normally keep and bear and under the Heller framework they are not in common use and they are the epitome of being UNUSUALLY dangerous

furthermore, the use or keeping of nukes-has interstate and international ramifications.
 
Beowulf said:
Can you cite the specific language?
Click to expand...

He cannot-and it has nothing to do with private citizens acting within the several states.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's nonsensical-it gives congress the power to regulate those in active service-not to regulate private citizens in the several states

NO ONE denies that congress can tell those serving in a federal armed force where they have to be, and what uniform they have to wear. Using your logic-that gives congress the power to tell me or my wife where we have to be or what we have to wear.
Click to expand...

Well, that is precisely what they did. They legislated requirements to own specific firearms based on your role in the militia and to muster twice annually for registration and inspection. But yes, that is the nonsensical result in the modern world where gun ownership is no longer tied to military service in any meaningful/actionable sense of the words as written. In classifying non-service members as part of a so-called “unorganized militia” Congress can extend that power to apply to you as a land force.
 
Napoleon said:
Well, that is precisely what they did. They legislated requirements to own specific firearms based on your role in the militia and to muster twice annually for registration and inspection. But yes, that is the nonsensical result in the modern world where gun ownership is no longer tied to military service in any meaningful/actionable sense of the words as written. In classifying non-service members as part of a so-called “unorganized militia” Congress can extend that power to apply to you as a land force.
Click to expand...

requiring you to own something is not the same power as denying you the right to own other things.
 
TurtleDude said:
requiring you to own something is not the same power as denying you the right to own other things.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. It’s all part of the power to regulate land forces. Where do you think Congress derives the power to prohibit you from owning armaments other than guns and can you articulate where the Constitution limits that authority based on the armament in question?
 
Napoleon said:
Sure it is. It’s all part of the power to regulate land forces. Where do you think Congress derives the power to prohibit you from owning armaments other than guns?
Click to expand...

Can you cite the language to which you are referring?
 
If the right to bear arms was clear it would be in the original draft, and not as a mere amendment. You know what amended means?
 
Napoleon said:
Sure it is. It’s all part of the power to regulate land forces. Where do you think Congress derives the power to prohibit you from owning armaments other than guns?
Click to expand...

Completely wrong. Congress has no proper power and right now, based on the FDR nonsense-it cannot prevent you from owing weapons that are in common use and are not unusually dangerous

and if you aren't in the militia-your argument has absolutely no merit. if you are in the militia-congress can tell you what to wear, where to be, and what weapons you can use-once you are n longer in active duty, it cannot. You cannot counter that
 
Manc Skipper said:
If the right to bear arms was clear it would be in the original draft, and not as a mere amendment. You know what amended means?
Click to expand...

The founders first believed that intelligent people would realize that unless a government of limited powers was actually given a specific power-then the government would have no such authority. Because some people worried that some were not intelligent enough to understand that-the bill of rights was put in to reiterate the fact that the new government had no such powers in many areas.
 
Manc Skipper said:
If the right to bear arms was clear it would be in the original draft, and not as a mere amendment. You know what amended means?
Click to expand...

When the several sovereign states established the constitution between themselves, did the give their general government any legislative power to restrict what a person from any of the several states may posses?
 
TurtleDude said:
Completely wrong. Congress has no proper power and right now, based on the FDR nonsense-it cannot prevent you from owing weapons that are in common use and are not unusually dangerous

and if you aren't in the militia-your argument has absolutely no merit. if you are in the militia-congress can tell you what to wear, where to be, and what weapons you can use-once you are n longer in active duty, it cannot. You cannot counter that
Click to expand...

Is there a Constitutional basis for that distinction or did someone decide to invent an extra—Constitutional power to regulate possession based on the shifting sands of what is reasonable?
 
Napoleon said:
Is there a Constitutional basis for that distinction or did someone decide to invent an extra—Constitutional power based on the shifting sands of what is reasonable?
Click to expand...

I am still waiting for you to prove congress was intended to have the power to tell private citizens what sort of arms they could own in their own sovereign states. If that power really existed, FDR wouldn't have needed to use the commerce clause farce to justify the 1934 NFA
 
TurtleDude said:
I am still waiting for you to prove congress was intended to have the power to tell private citizens what sort of arms they could own in their own sovereign states. If that power really existed, FDR wouldn't have needed to use the commerce clause farce to justify the 1934 NFA
Click to expand...

It must be somewhere in article I, section 8. I look forward to hearing the justification...
 
Beowulf said:
It must be somewhere in article I, section 8. I look forward to hearing the justification...
Click to expand...

FDR had to pretend the Commerce clause allowed gun control =and then only in the form of a tax. That sort of machinations pretty much showed how dishonest that POS was. There is nothing in Article I Sec. 8 that justifies federal gun control. We know it-and the anti gun revisionists know it, but they cannot admit it because it would prove that federal gun control is treasonous unconstitutional bunk.
 
TurtleDude said:
I am still waiting for you to prove congress was intended to have the power to tell private citizens what sort of arms they could own in their own sovereign states. If that power really existed, FDR wouldn't have needed to use the commerce clause farce to justify the 1934 NFA
Click to expand...

I’ve already done that. There was no distinction between the people and the militia and so the Congressional power to regulate land forces under Article 1 applies and they used it. You want to take a stab at answering the many questions I’ve posed to you?
 
TurtleDude said:
FDR had to pretend the Commerce clause allowed gun control =and then only in the form of a tax. That sort of machinations pretty much showed how dishonest that POS was. There is nothing in Article I Sec. 8 that justifies federal gun control. We know it-and the anti gun revisionists know it, but they cannot admit it because it would prove that federal gun control is treasonous unconstitutional bunk.
Click to expand...

Let's see what Napolean says. I'd be interested to hear what constitutional language he cites.
 
Napoleon said:
I’ve already done that. There was no distinction between the people and the militia and so the Congressional power to regulate land forces under Article 1 applies and they used it. You want to take a stab at answering the many questions I’ve posed to you?
Click to expand...

Can you cite the language in the constitution that would allow congress to enact any law that would prohibit any of the people of the states from possessing any particular item?
 
Beowulf said:
Can you cite the language in the constitution that would allow congress to enact any law that would prohibit any of the people of the states from possessing any particular item?
Click to expand...

I’ve already done that for you several times. Go back and read the thread.
 
Napoleon said:
I’ve already done that for you several times. Go back and read the thread.
Click to expand...

Right, and none of what you cited would allow congress to enact any law that would prohibit any of the people of the several states from possessing any particular item.

So we're good? We agree that the constitution doesn't allow gun control? Sweet. Cool.
 
Napoleon said:
I’ve already done that. There was no distinction between the people and the militia and so the Congressional power to regulate land forces under Article 1 applies and they used it. You want to take a stab at answering the many questions I’ve posed to you?
Click to expand...

none of them are relevant. the fact is-if you aren't in active service, congress cannot tell you

where to be
what to wear
who to associate with
what arms you can own or bear

do you want to take a shot at telling us why the first three are true but the fourth is not

Face it-gun restrictionists understand that federal gun control is a bogus power but they cannot admit that, so we get these completely specious and logic defying contortions where gun restrictionists-try to pretend that congress has all this power that the founders never intended, the constitution never discusses and which defies logic.
 
Beowulf said:
Right, and none of what you cited would allow congress to enact any law that would prohibit any of the people of the several states from possessing any particular item.

So we're good? We agree that the constitution doesn't allow gun control? Sweet. Cool.
Click to expand...

No. For your reference again:

“To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom