• 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 .
Would me making an argument that you want me to make serve your better? That is NOT debate. That is a ventriloquist act.

Well you have claimed that the commerce clause (along with several related clauses) justifies federal gun control even though its obvious the founders did not intend such powers and reading the CC does not even hint that retail sales should be a federal concern
 
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.

So you deny that the Heller decision helped the anti gun party?
 
So you deny that the Heller decision helped the anti gun party?

I have no idea either way and would be willing to examine any verifiable evidence you wish to present. Honestly - I gave it no thought at all and really think that outside of single issue gun obsessed individuals - few others have either.
 
I'll be taking a drive over to Silver Sevens which allows open carry before I leave Vegas.
Until then, I'll reserve comment on drunky drunks gambling with six-shooters .
 
I have no idea either way and would be willing to examine any verifiable evidence you wish to present. Honestly - I gave it no thought at all and really think that outside of single issue gun obsessed individuals - few others have either.

well there is an honest admission in that statement.
 
I'll be taking a drive over to Silver Sevens which allows open carry before I leave Vegas.
Until then, I'll reserve comment on drunky drunks gambling with six-shooters .

its a felony in most states to be drunk while packing a loaded pistol
 
I'm not in most states--a most general statement.
Besides, most gunners on your side of the fence believe in open-carry under any conditions.
Cabbies have a real problem with that out here when they get continually robbed by "law-abiding" open-carriers .

its a felony in most states to be drunk while packing a loaded pistol
 
I'm not in most states--a most general statement.
Besides, most gunners on your side of the fence believe in open-carry under any conditions.
Cabbies have a real problem with that out here when they get continually robbed by "law-abiding" open-carriers .

so cabbies are getting robbed by "open carriers"? not denying that but I have heard no such reports

I have a suggestion: cabbies shouldn't pick up such people then

and they should pack heat. cabbies are attacked by criminals more than cops, security guards or bank guards
 
Cabbies are required by law to pick up these open-carriers.
You should acquaint yerself with the laws of Nevada before speaking as you normally do on guns .

so cabbies are getting robbed by "open carriers"? not denying that but I have heard no such reports

I have a suggestion: cabbies shouldn't pick up such people then

and they should pack heat. cabbies are attacked by criminals more than cops, security guards or bank guards
 
I'm not in most states--a most general statement.
Besides, most gunners on your side of the fence believe in open-carry under any conditions.
Cabbies have a real problem with that out here when they get continually robbed by "law-abiding" open-carriers .

If a cabbie is getting robbed then it isn't by a law abiding citizen. And no doubt that "citizen" has a rap sheet denying him/her legal access to guns.
 
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.

Not worth my time. If you want to argue with Justice Scalia, put some leftist drum beating in a letter and send it to him.
 
Cabbies are required by law to pick up these open-carriers.
You should acquaint yerself with the laws of Nevada before speaking as you normally do on guns .

really? that's a stupid law then. I'd like to see a citation
 
Cabbies are required by law to pick up these open-carriers.
You should acquaint yerself with the laws of Nevada before speaking as you normally do on guns .

Quote the law please. If so then I would find such a law to be wrong. Particularly since there are cases of Muslims being allowed to deny carrying a passenger that has even one unopened bottle of beer. Of course I also think its wrong that there are laws that deny a private company the right to refuse service to anyone that they want for any reason that they want so no big surprise there.
 
Quote the law please. If so then I would find such a law to be wrong. Particularly since there are cases of Muslims being allowed to deny carrying a passenger that has even one unopened bottle of beer. Of course I also think its wrong that there are laws that deny a private company the right to refuse service to anyone that they want for any reason that they want so no big surprise there.


I don't think gun packers are a "Protected class" under TItle VII or the ADEA or the ADA
 
I don't think gun packers are a "Protected class" under TItle VII or the ADEA or the ADA

One of the reasons that I'm against those laws. It allows two kinds of discrimination. One discrimination is against the owners rights of association. The other discrimination is protecting a few types of groups while ignoring all the rest.
 
Cabbies are required by law to pick up these open-carriers.
You should acquaint yerself with the laws of Nevada before speaking as you normally do on guns .

If a fare wants to use a gun on a cabbie, what difference does it make if he's got it concealed or in the open? The cabbie can't read the guy's mind in either case--all he can do is pass up someone he's got a bad feeling about, and forget about the law.

All the time I lived in Arizona, I never saw or met anyone who was carrying a gun openly that wasn't obviously a peaceful citizen.
 
Not worth my time. If you want to argue with Justice Scalia, put some leftist drum beating in a letter and send it to him.

Which means you are unable to do so.... just like I figured.
 
Which means you are unable to do so.... just like I figured.

That's not responsive to what Matchlight said. He was asking you to prove your claim that the USSC had interpreted the 2A differently before Heller.
 
You had no real argument. If you think you do, just state it clearly and I will be happy to speak to it.

That's not true...you just chose to ignore it or didnt understand it.

The comment of RR's can be applied to many things...and when such is done....it's shown to not be a valid presumption.

Does that help clear it up?
 
That's not responsive to what Matchlight said. He was asking you to prove your claim that the USSC had interpreted the 2A differently before Heller.

I can find absolutely no record of the Supreme Court dividing the one sentence of the Second Amendment into any PREFATORY clause and OPERANT clause before Heller. One cannot produce something which was never done.

And that is the point.
 
That's not true...you just chose to ignore it or didnt understand it.

The comment of RR's can be applied to many things...and when such is done....it's shown to not be a valid presumption.

Does that help clear it up?

No - it clears up nothing. Reagans statement was very clear and applies to the Second Amendment. It is an entirely valid statement.
 
I can find absolutely no record of the Supreme Court dividing the one sentence of the Second Amendment into any PREFATORY clause and OPERANT clause before Heller. One cannot produce something which was never done.

And that is the point.
Go read Heller.
 
Go read Heller.

have done so.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).

I read both cited by Scalia as the reasons for his dividing the Amendment with those labels.

The first source - Tiffany - says nothing about that and does not use that label or distinction. The Second was a brief submitted to the Court for Heller and contains some of the most upside down gobbledy-gook word salad parsing I have ever seen in my 65 years. I would ask anyone who thinks it provides any legal basis for the Scalia PREFATORY and OPERANT distinctions to step up toe the plate and explain what that Brief said that was so crucial in making it the platform upon which the decision sits.

Lets start with you Jerry . Scalia cites this breif early in his opinion as being important. Lets look at part of it:

The term “bear arms” is an idiom that means to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight. To “bear arms against” means “to be engaged in hostilities with.” The word “arms” itself has an overwhelmingly military meaning, referring to weapons of offense or armor of defense. In every instance we have found where the term “bear arms” (or “bearing arms” or “bear arms against”) is employed, without any additional modifying language attached, the term unquestionably is used in its idiomatic military sense. It is only where additional language is tacked on, either to bend the idiom by specifying a particular type of fighting or to break the idiom by adding incompatible language, that the meaning of “bear arms” deviates. In the Second Amendment, the term is employed in its natural, unadorned state and, therefore, one must conclude, was used idiomatically to refer to military service.

So how did Scalia use that to then decide the right was an individual one and had nothing to do with military service when his own source says the very opposite?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom