• 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:
You still haven’t produced the language that prohibits the possession of items by the people of the several states
Click to expand...

I gave several different parts of the Constitution.
 
Beowulf said:
Okay. So when commerce occurs among the several states, what sort of regulations do you suggest?
Click to expand...

I would like licensing, universal bc and registration of any gun sold
 
haymarket said:
I gave several different parts of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


None of which gives Congress the power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess
 
vegas giants said:
Factually incorrect
Click to expand...

I’m fine with you abdicating.

So we are back where we started. Congress has no legislative power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess.
 
Beowulf said:
I’m fine with you abdicating.

So we are back where we started. Congress has no legislative power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess.
Click to expand...

I am fine with you abdicating.

So we are back to the federal government has the power to enact gun regulations
 
vegas giants said:
I am fine with you abdicating.

So we are back to the federal government has the power to enact gun regulations
Click to expand...

Sure, if you can show the language
 
vegas giants said:
Done and done
Click to expand...

So you can't. Got it. So we are back where we started. Congress has no legislative power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess.
 
Beowulf said:
So you can't. Got it. So we are back where we started. Congress has no legislative power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess.
Click to expand...

Did it. So we ate back to where the federal government has the power to enact gun regulations
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion [recognizing, for the first time, a private right to bear arms protected by the Amendment] should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Click to expand...
~ scalia in the heller decision

Originally Posted by TurtleDude:
... use restrictions that are the least restrictive means of preventing harm do not violate the right to keep and bear arms ...
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
You have completely failed to establish that the power to demand militia members have certain arms is the same as congress having the power to tell private citizens, not in active service-they cannot own certain arms. That failure is complete and until it is overcome, the rest of your arguments are vapid and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

why would this not be found under the expression "a well regulated militia"?
 
Beowulf said:
Is there some constitutional language to which you are referring? Can you please cite it here?
Click to expand...

10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
Click to expand...
10 U.S. Code SS 246 - Militia: composition and classes | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
TurtleDude said:
nuclear arms are not weapons citizens normally can keep and bear. try again. Your argument is getting circular, repetitive and absurd.
Click to expand...

the absurd argument is your own; here ranting that the courts have sanctioned what you oppose: legitimate gun control
TurtleDude said:
I noted that congress grabbed power and dishonest Lapdog justices allowed that unconstitutional action to stand.
Click to expand...
 
Beowulf said:
So we’ve taken care of commerce among the several states. What other power is there to restrict what the people of the several states may possess?
Click to expand...

so does "we’ve taken care of commerce among the several states" shown above, indicate you now recognize that the commerce clause does authorize the regulation of arms

if not, you have taken care of nothing
 
justabubba said:
~ scalia in the heller decision

Originally Posted by TurtleDude:
Click to expand...

LOL-Scalia's DICTA was designed to counter Steven's attempts to get Kennedy to join the anti gun minority. So Scalia paid homage to STATE restrictions and the 18 USC 922 restrictions on convicted felons etc not being able to own guns. NOTHING in Scalia's statement can be found to support things like magazine limits, waiting periods of "assault weapon bans" especially since Heller held that

FIREARMS in COMMON USE that are not UNUSUALLY dangerous-are protected.
 
justabubba said:
why would this not be found under the expression "a well regulated militia"?
Click to expand...

are you saying that you look to the Bill of rights to find additional powers for the government that were not enumerated or specified in Article I Sec. 8?
 
justabubba said:
the absurd argument is your own; here ranting that the courts have sanctioned what you oppose: legitimate gun control
Click to expand...

You are not debating, nor refuting my points. Nuclear weapons are not weapons citizens are normally keeping and bearing, nor expected to use for self defense or militia duty.
 
TurtleDude said:
Can you find a credible legal scholar who actually supports this claim. What is the natural right that predates the constitution that St George Tucker and the Cruikshank court was talking about. It sure wasn't the militia.
Click to expand...

such a "natural" right, one not requiring governmental approval, you insist, cobbled into a law when persons of color were denied ownership of arms. so much for a G_d given "natural" right
 
Beowulf said:
Which has been proven to be inadequate. So the general government has no legislative authority to restrict what the people of the several states may possess.
Click to expand...

by whom, and in what way?
 
justabubba said:
such a "natural" right, one not requiring governmental approval, you insist, cobbled into a law when persons of color were denied ownership of arms. so much for a G_d given "natural" right
Click to expand...

that is irrelevant to this discussion. and that aberration was corrected-as it should have been-by Amendment. Try again
 
justabubba said:
such a "natural" right, one not requiring governmental approval, you insist, cobbled into a law when persons of color were denied ownership of arms. so much for a G_d given "natural" right
Click to expand...

That was changed by explict amendment. What has yet to be explained is why the meaning of "the people" should be taken to mean only some of the people in the 2A (alone) or why the militia reference somehow implies that small arms commonly used by a militia member (militay style?) are somehow not what the 2A references.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom