• 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:
I don't need to defend Scalia since I have problems with him not throwing out all federal gun control as violating the 10th
Click to expand...

Which has nothing at all to do with the fact that Scalia cites the amicus brief as important to him but then comes to the opposite decision. By your standards that you have discussed on opinions, it is IGNORANT and STUPID and DISHONEST all rendering it as INVALID.

you need to tell us how you can claim that people not in the militia had their 2A rights violated when you also claim that there is no individual right
Click to expand...

Did you miss my previous post in which I explained how the COurt should have handled this question? I answered that for you yesterday when you first brought it up.

Scalia could have written an opinion which said nothing about some arbitrary distinction between his silly PREFATORY clause and the OPERANT clause which elevated the second half at the expense of diminishing the first half. That was completely and totally unnecessary. He could have admitted the importance of the militia language and stated clearly that was the purpose of the Amendment in the first place - to have something other than a standing army. He could have then discussed the history of the militia, who was in it and the importance of having a gun in that sort of system. He could have then discussed how both the militia system and the view of guns has changed over the last two centuries and the right evolved with it. And as the right evolved, so did guns evolve. And as both of those evolved, so did the role of government in the nation.

he could have concluded by putting all that together to state that - like it or not... intended or not .... gun ownership has evolved to be considered as an individual right. But as that has evolved so has the other components and they must be considered right along with it. As the original Constitution gives power over the militia, it is obvious that the Founders intended the weapons of the militia to be subject to regulation and control. And while we no longer have the militia because the right has evolved, we must also consider that intent applied to the right today and Congress can pass reasonable regulations over firearms providing the right can be exercised and Congress cannot create an environment where the right cannot be exercised.

The DC law creates an environment where the right to keep and bear arms cannot be exercised and is thus unconstitutional because it focuses on the most popular and widely used gun for home protection - the handgun.

And there you have it. The same party would have won the case. The same law would have been thrown out. And the power of Congress to regulate firearms would have been clearly upheld and clarified.
 
Last edited:
NIMBY said:
Right wing 2A folks have their beliefs--
Left wing 2A folks have their beliefs--
Then there's moderate 2A folks like me who just shake their head--
Let me know whenm you two sets of folks are ready to meet at the 50-yard line and shake hands .
Click to expand...

Please read my post 776. I believe that is a middle ground.
 
American said:
Oh please, when you guys talk compromise with the conservatives, it just means them giving in.
Click to expand...

Many argue the reverse is more true. But that type of dodge is beside the point. Your exaggeration is still an exaggeration.
 
Boo Radley said:
Many argue the reverse is more true. But that type of dodge is beside the point. Your exaggeration is still an exaggeration.
Click to expand...

when it comes to guns, American is 100% correct

what have the anti gun scum in office ever promised in return for more resrictions

what those assholes say is -we will let you keep some guns in return for banning others

as I noted

here is the proper compromise

Don't take honest peoples' guns and they won't' shoot you or repeal your stupid gun laws and you won't be tried for treason

under the 2A there is no proper reason for honest people to compromise with the control freaks
 
TurtleDude said:
as I noted

here is the proper compromise

Don't take honest peoples' guns and they won't' shoot you or repeal your stupid gun laws and you won't be tried for treason
Click to expand...

Got it. Do it our way or we will murder you or imprison you. Great! :roll::doh:shock:
 
haymarket said:
Got it. Do it our way or we will murder you or imprison you. Great! :roll::doh:shock:
Click to expand...

those who violate the constitutional rights of honest citizens often need shooting or imprisonment
 
TurtleDude said:
those who violate the constitutional rights of honest citizens often need shooting or imprisonment
Click to expand...

Even if the so called rights you murder people over are not rights you have at all. Got it loud and clear.
 
haymarket said:
Even if the so called rights you murder people over are not rights you have at all. Got it loud and clear.
Click to expand...

so you are back to claiming there is no individual right recognized by the 2A?
BTW what you wrote is not responsive to what I posted. I said those who VIOLATE constitutional rights
 
TurtleDude said:
so you are back to claiming there is no individual right recognized by the 2A?
BTW what you wrote is not responsive to what I posted. I said those who VIOLATE constitutional rights
Click to expand...

How can you quote something I said and then say something completely foreign to it?

And let me guess - its you and the far right who are going to both make that determination about violation of rights and then act as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner? :doh:roll::shock:
 
haymarket said:
How can you quote something I said and then say something completely foreign to it?

And let me guess - its you and the far right who are going to both make that determination about violation of rights and then act as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner? :doh:roll::shock:
Click to expand...

one of the purposes of the 2A was to make sure good honest citizens had the tools necessary to overcome those scumbags that would try to strip Americans of their constitutional rights. At some point, that may require good Americans using firearms or other weapons to kill or defeat power hungry would be tyrants. . I suppose there are some people out there who are so enamored with government that they cannot possibly imagine a situation where government leaders could ever become so malignant that surgical removal might be necessary. But the history of the world has proven how destructive government can be
 
TurtleDude said:
one of the purposes of the 2A was to make sure good honest citizens had the tools necessary to overcome those scumbags that would try to strip Americans of their constitutional rights. At some point, that may require good Americans using firearms or other weapons to kill or defeat power hungry would be tyrants. . I suppose there are some people out there who are so enamored with government that they cannot possibly imagine a situation where government leaders could ever become so malignant that surgical removal might be necessary. But the history of the world has proven how destructive government can be
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along - your desire to change definitions is a back door fraud to enable bigger and more powerful weapons in the hands of the far right to prepare for the day of Armageddon when they can murder their enemies in the streets of the USA.
 
haymarket said:
Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along - your desire to change definitions is a back door fraud to enable bigger and more powerful weapons in the hands of the far right to prepare for the day of Armageddon when they can murder their enemies in the streets of the USA.
Click to expand...
You know full well he has intimated his belief that the 2A only applies to small arms. Why do you feel the need to be less than truthful?
 
countryboy said:
You know full well he has intimated his belief that the 2A only applies to small arms. Why do you feel the need to be less than truthful?
Click to expand...

Not one thing I said was less than truthful.
 
countryboy said:
I know, the entire post was a lie. Not just one thing.
Click to expand...

It helps to understand that for some here, making things up is better done as an all-encompassing thing. Because I am well armed, I must be anxiously waiting for Armageddon. This passes as rational thought to some.
 
humbolt said:
It helps to understand that for some here, making things up is better done as an all-encompassing thing. Because I am well armed, I must be anxiously waiting for Armageddon. This passes as rational thought to some.
Click to expand...

I never claimed you were.
 
TurtleDude said:
when it comes to guns, American is 100% correct

what have the anti gun scum in office ever promised in return for more resrictions

what those assholes say is -we will let you keep some guns in return for banning others

as I noted

here is the proper compromise

Don't take honest peoples' guns and they won't' shoot you or repeal your stupid gun laws and you won't be tried for treason

under the 2A there is no proper reason for honest people to compromise with the control freaks
Click to expand...

Little in life is 100% for anything, so that in and of itself is an exaggeration.

And exactly what has been taken away?
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except Congress did it in the Preamble to the articles of amendment transmitted to the states (emphasis added):



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.​



The declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment is only an inactive prefatory statement of a foundational principle.

The restrictive clause is legally substantive (operative) and independent.

You are violating the simple directive stated by Congress as the reason the Bill of Rights exists. You are conjuring undefined and unlimited powers from a sentence fragment that can't be argued with a straight face to have any legal operation . . .

How does you interpretation work to extend public confidence in the federal government by adding prefatory declarations of principle and restrictive, "operative" clauses to prevent misconstruction and abuse of federal powers?

Guess what? It doesn't, your interpretation works directly against what the Bill of Rights is and does; your entire position is one of misconstructing the 2nd to endorse the abuse of federal powers.

You are exactly what the Federalists warned about, "men disposed to usurp" that endeavor to twist and misconstruct the words chosen to protect the right into illegitimate powers to destroy the right.


"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that [a fundamental right] shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining [a fundamental right] afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

Federalist 84
​



Your interpretation was in the minds of the founders / framers, as something to be warned about and vigilant for its rise and fought against whenever it appears.


.
 
I posted this earlier in the thread, but I'll post it again, because it deserves repeating. How anyone could present an argument against this is beyond me.

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along - your desire to change definitions is a back door fraud to enable bigger and more powerful weapons in the hands of the far right to prepare for the day of Armageddon when they can murder their enemies in the streets of the USA.
Click to expand...

anything civilian cops can use in terms of firearms other civilians should be able to own

why do you want criminals to have the upper hand against your neighbors and fellow citizens.

as I educated you earlier-the weapons most useful for assassination and revolution are not the same as the ones Democrats are trying to ban. You are trying to ban the best defensive weapons so its is obvious to me, the goal of the Democrats is not to protect cops from rebelling patriots but to protect criminals from their intended victims

why do gun banners side with criminals over honest citizens?
 
Boo Radley said:
Little in life is 100% for anything, so that in and of itself is an exaggeration.

And exactly what has been taken away?
Click to expand...

our right to own current state of the art infantry (militia) rifles
 
Arrived late.

Only to clarify and reinforce the right for individuals to keep and bear arms.
Further to clarify that the militia part was actually just the the supporting reasoning, and that the underlying reasoning was actually "so the government does not have a monopoly on deadly force."
 
haymarket said:
Even if the so called rights you murder people over are not rights you have at all. Got it loud and clear.
Click to expand...

The Colonists referred to them at tyrants.
 
American said:
The Colonists referred to them at tyrants.
Click to expand...


The founders certainly did not consider shooting down tyrants or their henchmen to be murder. Check out the Great Seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia

seal_virginia.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom