• 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!

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

Do you think the second amendment needs amended?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 18.2%

  • No

    Votes: 53 80.3%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Total voters
    66
  • Poll closed .
TurtleDude said:
Its akin to claiming "thou shall not steal" was not a prohibition on "Stealing":mrgreen:
Click to expand...

On the other hand, does "shall not be infringed" mean you get to privately purchase nuclear warheads with no background check?
 
I remember a story I read in the Bangkok (Thailand) Post that seems appropriate. It was called The Cloak of Stupidity:

"This is the sorry state of Thai society, where the current political conflict has buried otherwise good, intelligent and generous people in the pit of great stupidity. The term "great stupidity" here is...

Here is where a man (or a woman) can't make a political statement without being abused or terrorised by others. Here is where we love someone or something so much that person or thing is infallible, and anyone who dare criticize is met with such anger and hatred that a horde of marauding Vikings would quiver in fear and cower in their ships."

Lose the cloak of great stupidity | Bangkok Post: opinion.

Seems that, just like Ebola, this has reached our shores and penetrated our porous borders.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are partially correct but I maintain again WE ALL KNOW. people who are objectively honest admit that too. Most anti gun activists damn well know that the 2A prevents federal gun control but that is why those advocates spend so much time pretending the 2A does not say what it obviously does
Click to expand...

So if WE ALL KNOW why then can truly decent people not agree?
 
TurtleDude said:
so you no longer claim that "shall not be infringed" does not prevent infringements

do you no longer claim that the founders actually intended "infringements" to be a proper function of the federal government was you once did?
Click to expand...

I cannot even find one Founder who even used the word INFRINGEMENTS. Can you?
 
GBFAN said:
That's a really interesting perversion of the English language you got going on there ... the amendment says the action (infringing) shall not occur, whereas 'infringement' is a quantization of the acts of infringing ... and you propose this doesn't apply to the discussion?
Click to expand...

It is simple reality. Nothing more and nothing less. When modernists use the term INFRINGEMENTS they mean any incremental step in regulation or control. That is NOT what the word INFRINGED means.
 
countryboy said:
What was it intended to prevent?
Click to expand...

the government creating an environment where the right could not be exercised. If that happens - then the right has been INFRINGED.
 
haymarket said:
the government creating an environment where the right could not be exercised. If that happens - then the right has been INFRINGED.
Click to expand...

Which has already happened many times.

The amendment says nothing about "creating an environment". Why would you define it that way?
 
haymarket said:
the government creating an environment where the right could not be exercised. If that happens - then the right has been INFRINGED.
Click to expand...
The Gun Free School Zone Act. The school property is an environment where I cannot exercise my right. Therefore, according you, the Gun Free School Zone Act is an infringement, and I agree.
 
haymarket said:
It is simple reality. Nothing more and nothing less. When modernists use the term INFRINGEMENTS they mean any incremental step in regulation or control. That is NOT what the word INFRINGED means.
Click to expand...

According to Merriam-Webster:

Full Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Pretty sure that's exactly what they meant.

I suspect you are confusing the word with 'impinged'.
 
countryboy said:
Which has already happened many times.

The amendment says nothing about "creating an environment". Why would you define it that way?
Click to expand...

can you tell me when this happened?
 
GBFAN said:
According to Merriam-Webster:

Full Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Pretty sure that's exactly what they meant.

I suspect you are confusing the word with 'impinged'.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for that definition?
 
Jerry said:
The Gun Free School Zone Act. The school property is an environment where I cannot exercise my right. Therefore, according you, the Gun Free School Zone Act is an infringement, and I agree.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume you have a right to take a firearm anywhere you want to even on the property of others?
 
Jerry said:
The truly decent people agree.

Disagreeing is a sign of a...less than decent person.
Click to expand...

That is smugly dishonest. It also is evidence of the very problem I spoke about.
 
haymarket said:
Do you have a link for that definition?
Click to expand...

Are you f$$King serious? You can't look it up yourself? Give me a break ...

It's really easy ... go to Google .. type Merriam-Webster ... go to the first link ... type in the word i-n-f-r-i-n-g-e-d .... read it for yourself.
 
Unrepresented said:
I'm not claiming to be a scholar of court history, but the ACLU usually does fairly well at interpreting them, based on their legal record.
Click to expand...

Well, except for those instances when the ACLU is duplicitously misrepresenting the Court to further a leftist political agenda.

Either the ACLU is correct or they are lying . . . Either Heller was the first time that the Court said the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms without regard to one's state militia attachment, or I'm correct, that the Court recognized the right to bear arms being possessed by two ex-slaves, who were disarmed, kidnapped and lynched by the KKK in 1873 Louisiana, a state that had no state militia.

There's no interpretation to be done there; the facts be the facts. In referencing the indictment of the KKK members, the Court said:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to [the local police]."​

The Court rejected federal court jurisdiction because the KKK members who violated the two Black citizens' right to arms (among many others) were private citizens, not state government agents . . . so the 14th Amendment (and thus the 2nd) didn't apply.

The Court affirms the principle that the 2nd Amendment is not the source of the right to arms thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution to exist. That principle, all by itself negates and extinguishes any notion that the right is conditioned, qualified or contingent upon a citizen being a member of the militia.

That principle was further explained and re-re-re-affirmed by the Heller Court 132 years later:

"t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”"​


Please don't swallow the ACLU's lie.
 
haymarket said:
Why do you assume you have a right to take a firearm anywhere you want to even on the property of others?
Click to expand...
You and your loaded questions.

Copy of The Question Behind The Question By: John G. Miller by Ryan McHale on Prezi

8.jpg

My carrying a gun doesn't victimize you, I don't assume I have the right I know I have the right, and we aren't talking about private property.

So please, take your bull**** elsewhere.
 
Hm. The guy that started this poll hasn't been back on since the day he posted it.
 
TurtleDude said:
I think ultimately the gun grabbers might try to grab guns. Then they will be killed and the nonsense will disappear
Click to expand...

I think more the more likely scenario is a government is going to run into somebody that so seriously out guns the police that the cost of making said somebody comply would be ludicrous at best and at that point the genie leaves the bottle. This is especially so if said somebody is mostly harmless and just prefers to be left alone. What's been going one is that the statists have been trying their damnedest to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube. With not very much success. Right now its just contained eventually that goes the way of the dodo bird, because somebody is going to be able to bring enough hurt that for intents and purposes they become self sovereign. Therein lies our countries evolutionary past and future. The choice we have before us is that of self sovereignty or to revert back to subjects of whatever. Our experiment which makes us unique has been flirting with self sovereignty. So are we going to take the final steps to eventual self sovereignty? Unknown for certain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom