• 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 .
Oh putting words in quotes to change their meaning now? Nice. Dishonest of you, but nice.

"A well regulated militia...", that means were talking about militia arms, not naval arms, not air-force arms, but a militia, which is infantry and to a lesser degree field artillery.

I put the words in quotes to highlight them. Quotation marks don't change the meaning of words. In fact, it is you finding the words "militia arms", where they do not exist.

If the founders meant, "militia arms", why didn't they say, "militia arms"? Why did they specifically say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"? Why didn't they say, "the right of the militia"?

English not your strong suit, eh? That's cool, I'm sure you're good at other stuff. Not history though.
 
Interesting . For 220 years all we had was a Second Amendment. Now we seem to have an Amendment with a fancy PREFATORY clause which does not mean as much as the substance which normally clings to toilet tissue and an OPERANT clause which apparently is the be all and end all of the Amendment.

And when did this sudden transformation happen?

It never did happen. The Second Amendment has had a prefatory clause and an operant clause right from the time it was ratified in 1791. But the Supreme Court had never clearly construed those clauses until several years ago in Heller. I think Justice Scalia's precisely reasoned and thoroughly supported analysis of the meaning of those clauses in Heller is a thing of beauty. He hit the nail right on the head. Fuzzy-headed "liberals," who in fact are anything but liberal, no doubt despise Scalia partly because they are jealous of how clearly he thinks.
 
apparently "THAT MEANS" as used by you actually means ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO MEAN even though the Amendment does not say so.

that's a riot given you claim that "shall not be infringed" actually was intended to allow "infringements"

or that the militia clause was actually a grant of power to the federal government to tell people who are not in the militia what sort of arms they could own?
 
I put the words in quotes to highlight them. Quotation marks don't change the meaning of words. In fact, it is you finding the words "militia arms", where they do not exist.

If the founders meant, "militia arms", why didn't they say, "militia arms"? Why did they specifically say, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"? Why didn't they say, "the right of the militia"?

English not your strong suit, eh? That's cool, I'm sure you're good at other stuff. Not history though.


Jerry is correct. the 2A was about individual arms. Not man o' war or bombs or cannon. Stuff individuals would normally keep and bear.
 
Jerry is correct. the 2A was about individual arms. Not man o' war or bombs or cannon. Stuff individuals would normally keep and bear.

Perhaps I misunderstood his point. I thought he meant arms were only for militia.

Sorry Jerry, if I misunderstood. Mea culpa.
 
No, we have arms to kill people who would take away our rights by force

though if a war happens, I see collaborators and toadies of those in power as being seen as combatants as well

Yes, I doubt they could escape a reckoning if, God forbid, that ever happened. I wouldn't go quite that far as to people who collaborate with the Muslim jihadists making war on this country, though. Them, we should just try for seditious conspiracy or treason, whichever applies.
 
I thought he meant arms were only for militia.
That's not even remotely close to what I said.

The kinds of arms which are protected for private ownership are the kinds of arms fit for militia duty. Heymarket's example of nukes are not fit for militia duty therefore they are not protected by the second amendment.

Additionally, the State has a demonstrable compelling interest to restrict arms which are 'dangerous and unusual', such as explosives.

Here is the line:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
....We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ""dangerous and unusual weapons"."

~snip~

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
In order to be a protected, a weapon must be both 1."in common use at the time", and may not be 2. "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership.
So, let's go down the list:
  • Non-lethal weapons (ie; paint-ball guns, tazers): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Ranged weapons (ie; bow, crossbow, sling-shot): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Melee weapons (knives, axes, saps, baton): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle/shotgun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Assault-rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Machine-gun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear/radiological weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Lethal Biological/Chemical weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes
  • Non-Lethal Chemical weapons (ie; tear-gas, pepper-spray): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Accessories are not 'arms' but if we are to judge accessories by the same rule, then...
  • Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Telescopic/folding but-stock: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Flash Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Sound Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, and anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.
 
That's your first mistake.

If you don't read through Heller before posting you'll get your head handed to you again.
If you look at my last post, I think I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying the right to keep and bear arms was for militia only. Not individuals.
 
That's your first mistake.

If you don't read through Heller before posting you'll get your head handed to you again.

Calm down, it was a misunderstanding, and I apologized.
 
That's your first mistake.

If you don't read through Heller before posting you'll get your head handed to you again.

It's not an especially easy Supreme Court decision to read, compared to dopey liberal junk like, say, Griswold v. Connecticut, or Casey v. Planned Parenthood, or Lawrence v. Texas, which are long on the vague, soaringly-phrased opinions of their authors about what's bright and beautiful, but very short of hard legal reasoning underpinned by mountains of solid fact. A quick reading of decisions like those tells you about all there is to know--"Our holding is cool and right on, and trust us, you'll love the result we managed to come up with."

Heller is the very opposite of the "rainbows and unicorns" school of decision writing. It is very densely packed with detailed textual and historical analysis of every individual phrase in the Second Amendment, all of them packed with citations to obscure documents, laws, and statements by legal commentators. And this dense analysis, neatly outlined and subdivided, extends all the way from 17th-century England up to Miller in the 1930's.
 
Heller is the very opposite of the "rainbows and unicorns" school of decision writing. It is very densely packed with detailed textual and historical analysis of every individual phrase in the Second Amendment, all of them packed with citations to obscure documents, laws, and statements by legal commentators. And this dense analysis, neatly outlined and subdivided, extends all the way from 17th-century England up to Miller in the 1930's.
IMO anyone who won't read Heller, shouldn't comment on the topic.

...or vote.
 
Don't get mad at me just because you don't know what you're talking about.

But yet you claim this but cannot point out one factual error I have made.
 
and that is different than far lefties who bashed everything he did in office?

where did I ever praise Reagan though making Scalia a Justice was a good move

tell us Haymarket, why does Reagan's out of office psychobabble matter at all?

Nice dodge to try and hide from your charge that Reagan was senile. Its not working.
 
But yet you claim this but cannot point out one factual error I have made.
Of course I have. No part of this topic regards nukes. The instant you bring up a WMD, you have made a factual error.
 
No, we have arms to kill people who would take away our rights by force

though if a war happens, I see collaborators and toadies of those in power as being seen as combatants as well

Interesting..... you would target people for murder by you because of something they WOULD DO - at least in your own mind - rather that for what they DID DO.

What kind of world do you live in where we give people the death penalty because we suspect that they might do something? Whatever the answer is is IS NOT the USA that the rest of us live in.

And thank you for admitting that those you see as your political enemies would also fall under your bloody swath.

You confirm everything I said about the very reason you want bigger and more powerful weapons.
 
It never did happen. The Second Amendment has had a prefatory clause and an operant clause right from the time it was ratified in 1791.

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.
 
Nice dodge to try and hide from your charge that Reagan was senile. Its not working.
I haven't been following that duscussion. What does Reagon have to do with this? Are you talking about how he infringed on the 2A by banning open carry as a governor, and later by signing the Gun Control Act while the Houghs Amentment was atached?
 
that's a riot given you claim that "shall not be infringed" actually was intended to allow "infringements"


Nope - I have never made that claim and I have corrected you at least fifty times when you utter that falsehood.
 
Interesting..... you would target people for murder by you because of something they WOULD DO - at least in your own mind - rather that for what they DID DO.

What kind of world do you live in where we give people the death penalty because we suspect that they might do something? Whatever the answer is is IS NOT the USA that the rest of us live in.

And thank you for admitting that those you see as your political enemies would also fall under your bloody swath.

You confirm everything I said about the very reason you want bigger and more powerful weapons.

this is getting hysterical Haymarket

why do you want criminals to have better weapons than lawful civilians?

we know why you want minions of the government to be better armed than civilians=your posts suggest you worship government and can never ever imagine a situation where government is wrong.

but why do you want criminals to be better armed than your neighbors?
 
Nope - I have never made that claim and I have corrected you at least fifty times when you utter that falsehood.

Nonsense. you claimed the founders used a term that allowed infringements
 
Jerry is correct. the 2A was about individual arms. Not man o' war or bombs or cannon. Stuff individuals would normally keep and bear.

Jerry may believe as you believe. That DOES NOT make him correct and he is wrong.
 
Jerry may believe as you believe. That DOES NOT make him correct and he is wrong.

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
 
Here is the line:

In order to be a protected, a weapon must be both 1."in common use at the time", and may not be 2. "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership.
So, let's go down the list:
  • Non-lethal weapons (ie; paint-ball guns, tazers): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Ranged weapons (ie; bow, crossbow, sling-shot): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Melee weapons (knives, axes, saps, baton): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Rifle/shotgun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Assault-rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Machine-gun: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Nuclear/radiological weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
  • Lethal Biological/Chemical weapons: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes
  • Non-Lethal Chemical weapons (ie; tear-gas, pepper-spray): In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
  • ICBMs: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Accessories are not 'arms' but if we are to judge accessories by the same rule, then...
  • Detachable Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 30rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 60/100rnd Magazine: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • 100/200rnd linked (belt-fed) ammo: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Pistol Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Forward Grip: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Telescopic/folding but-stock: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No
  • Rifle Barrel under 18in: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Flash Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
  • Sound Suppressor: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.

Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, and anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

The Second Amendment says NONE of that.
 
Jerry may believe as you believe. That DOES NOT make him correct and he is wrong.
All one has to do is read Heller to know the defining standard and apply that standard to examples as I've don.
 
Back
Top Bottom