• 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:
Your claim that he is wrong is pretty strong evidence that he is right. I have yet to see a post of yours that is correct as to the 2A
Click to expand...

But yet all you provide is your own personal belief and nothing which actually disproves anything I have ever said.
 
haymarket said:
Please provide verifiable of this claim that the Amendment was so divided and recognized as those two distinct parts before Heller and the right wing drum beating that set it up.
Click to expand...
Heller actualy gives all those pre-Heller examples. You really should go read Heller start to finish.
 
Jerry said:
Heller does. Go read it.
Click to expand...

Heller was one decision in very recent years which was decided by a single vote on a Court ruled by ideology. That does not make it consistent with the Constitution and you know darn well it does not.
 
Jerry said:
Heller actualy gives all those pre-Heller examples. You really should go read Heller start to finish.
Click to expand...

Oh but I have and I see nothing in history which sets up two distinct parts of the Amendment until the right wing started their crusade climaxing in Heller.

But feel free to show me otherwise with verifiable evidence rather than your own opinion of Heller.
 
haymarket said:
Heller was one decision in very recent years which was decided by a single vote on a Court ruled by ideology. That does not make it consistent with the Constitution and you know darn well it does not.
Click to expand...

all that shows is that there are four dishonest liberals on the court

Stevens dissent will go down as one of the most pathetic in recent memory .
 
TurtleDude said:
true, but the Supreme Court has.
Click to expand...

And you yourself has said the Supreme Court is wrong on many things and you have called them all sort of vile names.... but all of the sudden now you prostrate yourself before them because of Heller.
 
haymarket said:
Oh but I have and I see nothing in history which sets up two distinct parts of the Amendment until the right wing started their crusade climaxing in Heller.

But feel free to show me otherwise with verifiable evidence rather than your own opinion of Heller.
Click to expand...

still claiming that the 2A only recognized a preexisting right of the federal government to create a militia?
 
haymarket said:
And you yourself has said the Supreme Court is wrong on many things and you have called them all sort of vile names.... but all of the sudden now you prostrate yourself before them because of Heller.
Click to expand...

nope, but they sort of got it right

totally right would have been striking down all federal gun control laws on 10th amendment grounds
 
TurtleDude said:
all that shows is that there are four dishonest liberals on the court

Stevens dissent will go down as one of the most pathetic in recent memory .
Click to expand...

It shows that those four people

1 - can read the entire Amendment
2- can understand 220 years of American history
3 - and are not sycophants and toadies of the gun lobby and the extreme right wing.
 
haymarket said:
Heller was one decision in very recent years which was decided by a single vote on a Court ruled by ideology. That does not make it consistent with the Constitution and you know darn well it does not.
Click to expand...
Heller gives the entire heraldry behind itself.

You need to just accept Heller as the law of the land and move forward.
 
TurtleDude said:
nope, but they sort of got it right

totally right would have been striking down all federal gun control laws on 10th amendment grounds
Click to expand...

I guess it shows you that even right wingers on the Court will not place themselves as far out on that right wing limb as you seem willing to do with your sacred 10th Amendment.

That should tell you something.
 
Jerry said:
Heller gives the entire heraldry behind itself.

You need to just accept Heller as the law of the land and move forward.
Click to expand...



No - what is needed is making sure it is overturned ASAP when Scalia is no longer there. Which will happen because Heller was such a radical departure from 220 years of American jurisprudence.
 
haymarket said:
It shows that those four people

1 - can read the entire Amendment
2- can understand 220 years of American history
3 - and are not sycophants and toadies of the gun lobby and the extreme right wing.
Click to expand...

anyone who claims that the 2A DID NOT recognize an individual right, should not be on the Supreme Court. are you claiming that the founders were merely recognizing a "preexisting right of congress to create a militia"


the anti gun misinterpretations of the 2A are so pathetic because they fly in the face of the obvious environment that existed at the time

then again, when someone claims that "shall not be infringed "was intended to allow "infringements" we sort of figure that other posts are going to make equally unsupportable arguments
 
haymarket said:
No - what is needed is making sure it is overturned ASAP when Scalia is no longer there. Which will happen because Heller was such a radical departure from 220 years of American jurisprudence.
Click to expand...

so what supreme court holding did Heller overturn?
 
haymarket said:
No - what is needed is making sure it is overturned ASAP when Scalia is no longer there. Which will happen because Heller was such a radical departure from 220 years of American jurisprudence.
Click to expand...
Sure, overturn Heller with the same act that abolishes all federal gun control of every kind; no more NICS; no more ATF.
 
haymarket said:
I guess it shows you that even right wingers on the Court will not place themselves as far out on that right wing limb as you seem willing to do with your sacred 10th Amendment.

That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

it should tell you that your rants about those 5 Justices are without merit.

but anyone who believes the the Commerce Clause actually was intended by the founders or can HONESTLY be read to grant all the powers FDR claimed it did is completely out to lunch

note that the anti gun justices dance around the tenth amendment issue-none of them want to try to justify the fiction FDR engaged in
 
TurtleDude said:
it should tell you that your rants about those 5 Justices are without merit.

but anyone who believes the the Commerce Clause actually was intended by the founders or can HONESTLY be read to grant all the powers FDR claimed it did is completely out to lunch

note that the anti gun justices dance around the tenth amendment issue-none of them want to try to justify the fiction FDR engaged in
Click to expand...

You attacking FDR at every opportunity is a hollow substitute for verifiable evidence supporting your claims - none of which you have ever provided.
 
Jerry said:
Sure, overturn Heller with the same act that abolishes all federal gun control of every kind; no more NICS; no more ATF.
Click to expand...

The Heller decision probably guaranteed the empty suit's election. If the SC had ruled as the Dems want, gun bans would have been a main issue in 2008 and that would have hurt Obola
 
haymarket said:
You attacking FDR at every opportunity is a hollow substitute for verifiable evidence supporting your claims - none of which you have ever provided.
Click to expand...

why don't you make an argument for why the language of the commerce clause was INTENDED to reach retail sales or perhaps Wickard and the wheat
 
TurtleDude said:
The Heller decision probably guaranteed the empty suit's election. If the SC had ruled as the Dems want, gun bans would have been a main issue in 2008 and that would have hurt Obola
Click to expand...

Republican candidates and policies and general public image set up Obama's election win.
 
haymarket said:
Republican candidates and policies and general public image set up Obama's election win.
Click to expand...

Heller took away the justifiable concern that Obola was another gun banning thug. Lots of union guys end up voting for Obola because they didn't worry about gun bans
 
TurtleDude said:
why don't you make an argument for why the language of the commerce clause was INTENDED to reach retail sales or perhaps Wickard and the wheat
Click to expand...

Would me making an argument that you want me to make serve your better? That is NOT debate. That is a ventriloquist act.
 
TurtleDude said:
Heller took away the justifiable concern that Obola was another gun banning thug. Lots of union guys end up voting for Obola because they didn't worry about gun bans
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about and the fact that your claims come without any evidence shows that your opinions are baseless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom