• 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!

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  • Total voters
    69
LaMidRighter said:
It's like the anti-gun lobby doesn't understand what a subordinate clause is.
Click to expand...

I disagree. if you gave Dennis Hennigan or Josh Sugarmann or some of those other scumbags a shot of scopolamine they would admit that the second amendment recognizes an individual right and that the commerce clause is a bogus vehicle to allow federal gun laws.

the anti gun scum realize that the constitution prevents their unwholesome plots so they pretend that the constitution says something it doesnt
 
Gun haters tend to be cowards too-the one no vote is anonymous
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really funny. what sort of evidence do you derive your rather statist interpretation from? and explain how the 9th and Tenth amendments figure into this issue.

yeah its an individual right because the right was never limited by a delegation of power to the federal government

constitutional law 101
Click to expand...
Why do you find perfectly reasonable disagreements with your positions funny? I already see where this is going so I'll just let John Paul Stevens make my argument so I don't have to waste my time.

Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves,” as was done in the Pennsylvania and Vermont Declarations of Rights. The unmodified use of “bear arms,” by contrast, refers most naturally to a military purpose, as evidenced by its use in literally dozens of contemporary texts.9 The absence of any reference to civilian uses of weapons tailors the text of the Amendment to the purpose identified in its preamble.
Click to expand...

The full dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Why do you find perfectly reasonable disagreements with your positions funny? I already see where this is going so I'll just let John Paul Stevens make my argument so I don't have to waste my time.



The full dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller
Click to expand...

stevens' dissent was widely lampooned as idiotic because he based it on lower court decisions that were in turn based on improper distortions of the Cruikshank decision of the 1870s. how about finding any support for the idiotic collective right nonsense (that has been destroyed by constitutionals on the Right-Volokh, the middle-Van Alstyne and Hallbrook, and the left-Levinson and Amar) that was around at the time the bill of rights was authored.
find one document, letter or reference to a founder saying what you claim the second amendment says
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I'm not anti-gun. Fail.
Click to expand...

Nah, and Ted Kennedy claimed he supported the second amendment

his interpretation of course allowed a complete ban on all privately owned guns
 
TheLastIndependent said:
yes but no. I don't think that military grade weapons should be allowed to be bought. I don't think college students should be allowed to buy guns. I think that there should be further screening before purchase. There are too many murders daily to allow weapons such as Uzis and Ak's to be bought and sold (legally or illegally). At the same time, if you like to hunt I see no problem with buying a rifle.
Click to expand...

And how many people are actually killed with Uzis and AKs as compared to, say, 9mm Glocks?
 
TurtleDude said:
Nah, and Ted Kennedy claimed he supported the second amendment

his interpretation of course allowed a complete ban on all privately owned guns
Click to expand...
Why are you talking about Ted Kennedy?
 
Sig said:
And how many people are actually killed with Uzis and AKs as compared to, say, 9mm Glocks?
Click to expand...

when the idiotic assault weapon ban was being discussed, the chief of police of some new jersey town (Trenton IIRC) noted that his officers were more likely to be mauled by an escaped circus tiger or lion than shot at with an "assault weapon"
 
TurtleDude said:
stevens' dissent was widely lampooned as idiotic because he based it on lower court decisions that were in turn based on improper distortions of the Cruikshank decision of the 1870s. how about finding any support for the idiotic collective right nonsense (that has been destroyed by constitutionals on the Right-Volokh, the middle-Van Alstyne and Hallbrook, and the left-Levinson and Amar) that was around at the time the bill of rights was authored.
find one document, letter or reference to a founder saying what you claim the second amendment says
Click to expand...
If by "widely lampooned", you mean, "people who agree with TD's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment criticized it while it was widely praised by those who didn't", then yes, you are correct. Unfortunately, that's not an actual argument. That's just saying, "I'm right and your stupid!" Sorry, I'm not interested.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
If by "widely lampooned", you mean, "people who agree with TD's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment criticized it while it was widely praised by those who didn't", then yes, you are correct. Unfortunately, that's not an actual argument. That's just saying, "I'm right and your stupid!" Sorry, I'm not interested.
Click to expand...

nope-liberal moderate and conservative legal scholars.

stephens isn't exactly a high wattage justice and his dissent was based on a house of cards
 
TurtleDude said:
ThePlayDrive said:
Why are you talking about Ted Kennedy?
Click to expand...

because he claimed he supported the second amendment and "gun rights"
Click to expand...

The same way Thunder does.

Thunder would probably take it as a compliment to be likened to Ted Kennedy. Were I to make such a comparison, I would certainly mean it as something very much other than a compliment.
 
TurtleDude said:
because he claimed he supported the second amendment and "gun rights"
Click to expand...

The word "gun" is not found in the Second Amendment.
Supporting the second amendment is not the same as supporting a particular interpretation of it.

and that observation is by someone who believes that every non felon should be able to get a concealed carry permit.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
And what does that have to do with my response?
Click to expand...

when people who claim that the second amendment doesnt recognize an individual right while claiming they support "gun rights" or they are not "anti-gun" I tend to be a bit cynical
 
Dittohead not! said:
The word "gun" is not found in the Second Amendment.
Supporting the second amendment is not the same as supporting a particular interpretation of it.

and that observation is by someone who believes that every non felon should be able to get a concealed carry permit.
Click to expand...

I agree, laws banning automatic knives (aka switch blades) butterfly knives, sword canes, nunchaku and all that stuff that causes some ninnies to lose control of their bladders after watching too many Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal films, are equally unconstitutional
 
TurtleDude said:
nope-liberal moderate and conservative legal scholars.

stephens isn't exactly a high wattage justice and his dissent was based on a house of cards
Click to expand...
You realize Stevens wasn't the only Justice to dissent - 3 others did so as well so this is, unfortunately for you, not as clear cut an interpretation as you would like.

Nonetheless, what do the political leans of those who agree with you have to do with anything? I don't recall saying only conservatives or liberals would support your argument. I said that by "widely lampooned", you actually mean, "it was criticized by those who share my opinion". And I am right. It was condemned by some and praised by others. It was criticized by some legal scholars and supported by others. Your posts simply treat opinions that differ from your own as foolish or something similar. Unfortunately, "I'm right and you're stupid" doesn't erase the validity of those arguments.
 
TurtleDude said:
when people who claim that the second amendment doesnt recognize an individual right while claiming they support "gun rights" or they are not "anti-gun" I tend to be a bit cynical
Click to expand...
Well your cynicism has no effect on the authenticity of my statement.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
You realize Stevens wasn't the only Justice to dissent - 3 others did so as well so this is, unfortunately for you, not as clear cut an interpretation as you would like.

Nonetheless, what do the political leans of those who agree with you have to do with anything? I don't recall saying only conservatives or liberals would support your argument. I said that by "widely lampooned", you actually mean, "it was criticized by those who share my opinion". And I am right. It was condemned by some and praised by others. It was criticized by some legal scholars and supported by others. Your posts simply treat opinions that differ from your own as foolish or something similar. Unfortunately, "I'm right and you're stupid" doesn't erase the validity of those arguments.
Click to expand...

Souter didn't want to write a dissent, he was by far the smartest of the dissenters and probably realized that he couldn't come up with an intellectually sound dissent. Breyer's was as pathetic as Stevens==he argued that "rights" are subject to the environment. which is that if NYC has a gun problem (of course he ignored the factual evidence that gun laws have never been proven to advance public safety) they could interpret the amendment differently than say Idaho or New Mexico

which of course would mean that a police captain facing a terrorist attack should be able to attach jumper cables to the testicles of some terrorist to get answers but the traffic cop cannot beat the crap out of a guy charged with shoplifting.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I'm not anti-gun. Fail.
Click to expand...
Then you may want to use better logic than Brady campaign material, you are essentially mirroring their statements. So you are right, there is a major fail, it just doesn't happen to be mine.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The word "gun" is not found in the Second Amendment.
Supporting the second amendment is not the same as supporting a particular interpretation of it.

and that observation is by someone who believes that every non felon should be able to get a concealed carry permit.
Click to expand...
Unless you go by the interpretation that those who wrote it and ratified it had, then it, and any other constitutional clause or law, can dramatically shift its meaning at the whim of the judges interpreting it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom