• 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!

What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

  • You can have any gun you want and no one can stop you.

    Votes: 15 34.9%

  • You can have any ARM you want. Why stop at guns? Knives, grenades, nunchucks, tanks...it's all good!

    Votes: 8 18.6%

  • Yeah, you can have a gun, but there are limits to that right, like every other right.

    Votes: 15 34.9%

  • You can have a gun so you can join in a militia instead of having a standing army.

    Votes: 7 16.3%

  • You can have an 18th century single-shot firearm and no one can stop you.

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • You and your gun cannot be singled out by the government, it has to follow it's own laws

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • As a principle you should have the right to a gun, but we're not going to explain how.

    Votes: 4 9.3%

  • It's purposefully vague.

    Votes: 4 9.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 10 23.3%
  • Total voters
    43
Joe Steel said:
You should do some research.

You're wrong.
Click to expand...

show me in the constitution, where you are given rights, .....no where.

rights exist becuase of your humanity, you have them whether government exist of not, someone could suppress those rights, but they still exist.

which in America the DOI does not grant /give rights ..it states they are endowed to you, by a higher power,...not the people or government.

then the constitution comes along and recognizes those preexisting rights, and places prohibitions on the government not to infringe on them, by making the bill of rights of .......restrictive clauses towards the government.

during the founders, you had a right to privacy, but it was not listed in the constitution... however it took USSC cases in the last 50 years ...... to place a prohibition on government not to violate ..your privacy.
 
I believe this means we have the right to defend ourselves as well as our rights and ability (if the masses choose) to rebel and recreate a goverment
 
ernst barkmann said:
... rights exist becuase of your humanity, you have them whether government exist of not, someone could suppress those rights, but they still exist ...
Click to expand...

You're confusing interests and rights. Interests exist because of a person's humanity. Communities create rights to allow pursuit of interests.

For instance, we have property rights because a landowner has an interest in controlling a piece of land.
 
Joe Steel said:
Why hasn't anyone done anything about them? For instance, the various relief programs (TANF, SNAP, WIC) aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Why do they still exist?
Click to expand...

simple answer how do you fight the government , who has amassed most of the power and money.

if the government is sued, who paying the cost for the government bills while being sued...the people doing the suing.

this is hat the founders say about the powers of government, ...which is the general welfare, and there are 18 powers.



“[Congressional jurisdiction of power] is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” – James Madison, Federalist 14

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” – James Madison, Federalist 45

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed” – Thomas Jefferson, 1791

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson, 1798

There you have it. James Madison, the Constitution’s author and Thomas Jefferson the author of the Declaration of Independence, specifically say that Congressional powers are to be limited and defined – unlike most modern interpretations!

Admittedly, Jefferson and Madison were not our only Founders. These two were strict constitutionalists who feared the potential strength of any government. So let’s look at another Founder’s opinion—Alexander Hamilton who historically saw it in a somewhat looser vain.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 83

Hamilton uncategorically states that all congressional powers are enumerated and that the very existence of these enumerations alone makes any belief that Congress has full and general legislative power to act as it desires nonsensical. If such broad congressional power had been the original intent, the constitutionally specified powers would have been worthless. In other words, why even enumerate any powers at all if the General Welfare clause could trump them?

“No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

In short, Hamilton tells us that since the powers of Congress are enumerated and limit Congress to those powers, any assumed authority outside those specified that don’t have a direct relation to those explicit powers must be contrary to the Constitution and therefore — unconstitutional.
 
Joe Steel said:
You're confusing interests and rights. Interests exist because of a person's humanity. Communities create rights to allow pursuit of interests.

For instance, we have property rights because a landowner has an interest in controlling a piece of land.
Click to expand...


incorrect..... the constitution states rights and privileges only...there is nothing else.

communities do not create rights, if man could create rights, then he could take then when i felt like it, he could give them to his friends, and not other people.

no where in the founding documents to you see the founders creating rights........government can create a .......privilege

a right , i need no authority to act on.

a privilege, requires i have authority to act on.

privileges are not always given to every citizen, but every citizens does have rights.

people had property rights in the beginning, however other people wish to take away ones property, and that is why government is instituted,....... to secure rights of the people.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

if every man, respected the right of every other man......no government would be needed at all......becuase we would all work and help each other in harmony........but we dont, so government is there to protect everyone rights, from those who would infringe on them.
 
It reads, I have a gun, it is loaded, best be on your way...
 
ChezC3 said:
Nah, I'm not one of them that allows people to walk all over my Rights...;)
Click to expand...
Ha!

But I do think that'd make a decent doormat line...bit long perhaps...
 
ernst barkmann said:
its a prohibition on government, it is not a right.
Click to expand...
The prohibition prevents the government from infringing on the right.

That's what all the "rights" are - not something the gov gives us, but something they're not allowed to take away.

Basically.
 
The Mark said:
The prohibition prevents the government from infringing on the right.

That's what all the "rights" are - not something the gov gives us, but something they're not allowed to take away.

Basically.
Click to expand...

you have your rights from your humanity, and your rights are vast, the founders knew this, some wanted a bill of rights, some didn't, the ones that didn't thought by listing rights, it would in essence limits rights to only what is on the listing in the constitution, which are a few, however the 9th amendment was added to state that citizen's have more rights then are listed in the bill of rights, and placed on the federal government restrictions, that the federal government will make no laws which infringe on the rights of citizens.

since the days of the founders, people have had their vast rights infringed on by government which are not listed, and the USSC, has recognized those rights which are not listed, like the right to privacy, right to association, and placed further restrictions on the government which they are not to infringe on.

so the constitution never gave you a right, it just recognizes rights you have from your humanity, and restricts the federal government from passing any law which would again...infringe on them.

so rights of the people cannot be repealed, because their are no rights in the constitution, just a prohibition on government.

so how can government repeal a restriction........... which is placed on them.

it would be like a robber, having the ability to change the law, to make is crime lawful.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you have your rights from your humanity, and your rights are vast, the founders knew this, some wanted a bill of rights, some didn't, the ones that didn't thought by listing rights, it would in essence limits rights to only what is on the listing in the constitution, which are a few, however the 9th amendment was added to state that citizen's have more rights then are listed in the bill of rights, and placed on the federal government restrictions, that the federal government will make no laws which infringe on the rights of citizens.

since the days of the founders, people have had their vast rights infringed on by government which are not listed, and the USSC, has recognized those rights which are not listed, like the right to privacy, right to association, and placed further restrictions on the government which they are not to infringe on.

so the constitution never gave you a right, it just recognizes rights you have from your humanity, and restricts the federal government from passing any law which would again...infringe on them.

so rights of the people cannot be repealed, because their are no rights in the constitution, just a prohibition on government.

so how can government repeal a restriction........... which is placed on them.

it would be like a robber, having the ability to change the law, to make is crime lawful.
Click to expand...
Because not everyone agrees with this interpretation of things?
 
The Mark said:
Because not everyone agrees with this interpretation of things?
Click to expand...

well I will give you proof.

its the preamble to the bill of rights.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

translation: because some members of the constitutional convention, at the time of adopting the constitution, expressed a desire in order to prevent the abuses which may come from federal government powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added to the constitution to give the public more confidence in the new government, and will best ensure of the government doing good, by its institution or creation.
 
humbolt said:
Okay. We have the right to prohibit government. Izzat better?
Click to expand...
well what I trying to convey is we don't get rights from a piece of paper, but our humanity, government cannot take them away, they can only violate the constitution by violating the restrictions placed on them.

so I am not at all being argumentative with you:)
 
ernst barkmann said:
well I will give you proof.

its the preamble to the bill of rights.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

translation: because some members of the constitutional convention, at the time of adopting the constitution, expressed a desire in order to prevent the abuses which may come from federal government powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added to the constitution to give the public more confidence in the new government, and will best ensure of the government doing good, by its institution or creation.
Click to expand...
I think part of the issue here is that you think I disagree with you.

I don't.

My point is, rather, that some people DO. And some of those people are in power positions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom