• 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:
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
Click to expand...

And when did it suddenly become a cause celebre among the far right to redefine what a CIVILIAN is?
 
haymarket said:
which is not part of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

So the castle in the sky that you have erected, in complete and irreconcilable opposition to foundational principle is what you are going to run with?

Please explain how the fragment "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," can be read to demand any action or circumstance be initiated or maintained.

Please cite and quote any opinion / statement by SCOTUS that holds that the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment has any legal weight or offers any guidance on anything.

Please explain why you defend all manner of gun control placed on private citizens who have no militia enrollment status, by citing Congressional powers to regulate the militia but
a), SCOTUS has said that those powers only flow from Art. I, §8 and
b), not one gun control law that operates on private citizens and their personal arms is written under militia powers / authority . . .
 
TurtleDude said:
our right to own current state of the art infantry (militia) rifles
Click to expand...

LOL. Not sure that was ever the right, but one thing for sure, the courts have allowed for reasonable restrictions. The precedence is settled on that. And not new under Obama or democrats or anyone one else you care to demonize. Few rights are absolute.
 
Willie Orwontee said:
So the castle in the sky that you have erected, in complete and irreconcilable opposition to foundational principle is what you are going to run with?
Click to expand...

Sorry - I have no idea what that means.


Please explain how the fragment "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," can be read to demand any action or circumstance be initiated or maintained.
Click to expand...

sorry - but I have no idea what that means either.



Please cite and quote any opinion / statement by SCOTUS that holds that the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment has any legal weight or offers any guidance on anything.
Click to expand...

What declaratory clause? Its one sentence for heavens sake. Is this part of the Scalia PREFATORY/OPERANT scam that we saw him employ so horrible and inaccurately in Heller
?
Please explain why you defend all manner of gun control placed on private citizens
Click to expand...

Your blatantly false premise renders all that comes after it irrelevant. I DO NOT defend all manner of gun control. In fact, I am on record as saying the DC gun ban went to far and set an environment where the right could not be exercised.
 
Boo Radley said:
LOL. Not sure that was ever the right, but one thing for sure, the courts have allowed for reasonable restrictions. The precedence is settled on that. And not new under Obama or democrats or anyone one else you care to demonize. Few rights are absolute.
Click to expand...

actually the supreme court has really not done that.
 
haymarket said:
And when did it suddenly become a cause celebre among the far right to redefine what a CIVILIAN is?
Click to expand...

that is ridiculous. It was only after the far wrong pretended cops are not civilians because of the Heller implications. Cops have always been civilians
 
TurtleDude said:
that is ridiculous. It was only after the far wrong pretended cops are not civilians because of the Heller implications. Cops have always been civilians
Click to expand...

So are you again confirming that it was as a result of the Heller decision that this cause celebre started on the far right of this issue?
 
haymarket said:
So are you again confirming that it was as a result of the Heller decision that this cause celebre started on the far right of this issue?
Click to expand...

you are the one who has tried to claim-despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that cops are not civilians. Like the 2A's intent being prohibiting government intrusions, civilian cops are civilians is pretty much a given to just about anyone who doesn't start with an anti gun agenda and try to work backwards
 
TurtleDude said:
you are the one who has tried to claim-despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that cops are not civilians.
Click to expand...

Your quarrel is with the authoritative experts on the English language who write the American dictionaries.

Can you provide us with any proof that the rights attempt to redefine the term CIVILIAN into something other than the standard dictionary definition existed before Heller?
 
haymarket said:
Your quarrel is with the authoritative experts on the English language who write the American dictionaries.
Click to expand...

yes we have been through that false claim of yours before and it was destroyed. MW reported a parlance that cops use and you pretend it is an authoritative legal definition which of course is not accurate
 
TurtleDude said:
yes we have been through that false claim of yours before and it was destroyed. MW reported a parlance that cops use and you pretend it is an authoritative legal definition which of course is not accurate
Click to expand...

I have NEVER used your own strawman about cops using the term to each other. That is your strawman. That is your claim. It is not mine.

To continue to put forth that intellectual fraud is highly dishonest as it is NOT my argument and has NEVER been my argument.
 
haymarket said:
I have NEVER used your own strawman about cops using the term to each other. That is your strawman. That is your claim. It is not mine.

To continue to put forth that intellectual fraud is highly dishonest as it is NOT my argument and has NEVER been my argument.
Click to expand...

its not a straw man

any municipality, state or federal agency that supplies civilian LE officers with certain weapons are making a plain and open statement that such weapons are the most suitable for civilians to use in a civilian environment for self defense against criminals. that pretty much destroys the lies of Democrats who claim that such weapons have "NO LEGITIMATE USE" or reason for other civilians to possess them
 
countryboy said:
Here's one of those experts. Do you agree with his assessment, or do you only cite the "experts", when they support your position?

J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
Click to expand...

Its an opinion. The opinion Scalia cited in Heller cited came to the opposite conclusion. Here it is for you both from Scalia and his source

first from Scalia in Heller
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).
Click to expand...

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.

But let me quote from a rather clear part of that same brief Scalia cites as important to determining his reasoning:


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.
Click to expand...

So the very brief Scalia cites from experts which he claims he used in Heller says the opposite.
 
countryboy said:
That's what I thought. :roll:
Click to expand...

Great. Glad we agree. Now maybe you can explain why the expert cited by Scalia in Heller came to the opposite conclusion?
 
haymarket said:
Great. Glad we agree. Now maybe you can explain why the expert cited by Scalia in Heller came to the opposite conclusion?
Click to expand...
Glad you admit you only cite "experts" when they support your position.
 
countryboy said:
Glad you admit you only cite "experts" when they support your position.
Click to expand...

I cited the experts that were cited by Supreme Court Chief Justice Scalia in Heller.
 
haymarket said:
I cited the experts that were cited by Supreme Court Chief Justice Scalia in Heller.
Click to expand...

Yes, experts that you believe support your position. Yet when confronted with an expert that doesn't support your position, you dismiss them out of hand. Why am I not surprised?
 
countryboy said:
Yes, experts that you believe support your position. Yet when confronted with an expert that doesn't support your position, you dismiss them out of hand. Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...

Actually they were experts Scalia cited that he believed supported his position.

I have no doubt that a guy down the street at the bar may have an opinion also. So what? I tried to play this straight and give you the very opinion of the linguists that Scalia himself cited since it was that opinion which he says helped frame his ruling.

Do you understand that?

When we talk about what framed Scalias opinion - my opinion does not count for anything. Your opinion does not count for anything. Some so called expert does not count for anything if they were not cited in Heller.

What is there about that distinction which befuddles you so?
 
humbolt said:
Does Roberts know Scalia has replaced him? Poor guy. I bet he doesn't. It'll be a shock.
Click to expand...

Thank for pointing that out. I should have said Scalia was the writer of the majority opinion. As you pointed out - Roberts is Chief Justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom