• 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 .
ernst barkmann said:
sure it does..because the 2nd is a restriction on the federal government.....show where in the general powers of congress article 1 section8 , where it has powers that deal into the personal life's of the people.
Click to expand...

show me how the sale of firearms is not considered an act of commerce?
 
haymarket said:
How so? Where is it written that the personal opinion of somebody who lived in an America which for all practical purposes no longer exists suppose to carry all that weight today?
Click to expand...

anyone trained in the law who is tasked with interpreting say a contract that various parties claim is unclear, will certainly inquire into the mindset of the author.

for example, If my grandfather's will said Turtle shall inherit my favorite car and when he died, he had 15 cars including a million dollar Bugatti along with others less valuable, it would be in my interest to claim that his favorite car is that custom made Italian job while perhaps my cousin would claim its a cadillac since he gets second pick in the will

if my lawyer produces dozens of letters where my grandfather tells other people that his favorite vehicle is the Bugatti, that certainly would weigh heavily in any judge or jury's decision on the matter
 
TurtleDude said:
that is stupid on two counts

shall not be infringed means no such laws

and since congress was not delegated the power to make those laws

you fail again

you seem to labor under the statist delusion that if congress is not absolutely totally and completely forbidden from doing something it can do that

can congress degree how long a skirt your would be girl friend can wear? there is no constitutional prohibition on such a law in the bill of rights


or what color underwear you must wear while in federal court?
Click to expand...

and whose authority is it to determine what are infringements to the constitution? you?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
show me how the sale of firearms is not considered an act of commerce?
Click to expand...

you have been schooled on why that is a dishonest question

you avoided it the first time so I have to assume its now a dilatory and dishonest question

show me where an act of individual commerce was intended to covered by federal action and why this power was not apparent until Wickard
 
TurtleDude said:
anyone trained in the law who is tasked with interpreting say a contract that various parties claim is unclear, will certainly inquire into the mindset of the author.

for example, If my grandfather's will said Turtle shall inherit my favorite car and when he died, he had 15 cars including a million dollar Bugatti along with others less valuable, it would be in my interest to claim that his favorite car is that custom made Italian job while perhaps my cousin would claim its a cadillac since he gets second pick in the will

if my lawyer produces dozens of letters where my grandfather tells other people that his favorite vehicle is the Bugatti, that certainly would weigh heavily in any judge or jury's decision on the matter
Click to expand...

I fully agree with your example about giving away your property and who should get it.

But I think your answer does not really speak to the issue I raised. I ask again - Where is it written that the personal opinion of somebody who lived in an America which for all practical purposes no longer exists suppose to carry all that weight today?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
and whose authority is it to determine what are infringements to the constitution? you?
Click to expand...

LOL, I guess the concept of being a citizen is something you cannot understand. This country was founded on private citizens who determined that the King of England had infringed on their natural rights as free men

and what authority causes one to adopt the cloak of a running dog for government?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
show me how the sale of firearms is not considered an act of commerce?
Click to expand...

simple.... because it says commerce "among the states"......does it say "among the people"...no

as stated many times the constitution is about federalism the separation of powers between the federal government and the states, its not about the federal government and the people.


James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 283--85
22 Jan. 1788

The defect of power in the existing confederacy, to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added, that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce, would have been incompleat, and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out, to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter, and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbours, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamours of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.


the commerce clause of the Constitution is to grant the federal government the power to regulate commerce laws the states create, in order to prevent trade wars and barriers......it has nothing to do with personal life's of the people
 
TurtleDude said:
show me where an act of individual commerce was intended to covered by federal action and why this power was not apparent until Wickard
Click to expand...

1- how is anybody suppose to show you that even if such complete records of the constitutional convention existed - which they do not?

2- why would it matter?
 
haymarket said:
I fully agree with your example about giving away your property and who should get it.

But I think your answer does not really speak to the issue I raised. I ask again - Where is it written that the personal opinion of somebody who lived in an America which for all practical purposes no longer exists suppose to carry all that weight today?
Click to expand...

uh that is not relevant. what is relevant is what did the founders intend for the 2A to do
 
haymarket said:
1- how is anybody suppose to show you that?

2- why would it matter?
Click to expand...

uh because we are demonstrating that the Democrats have twisted and mutated the words and intent and force of the Constitution
 
TurtleDude said:
uh that is not relevant. what is relevant is what did the founders intend for the 2A to do
Click to expand...

But why? Why should the individual opinions of people who lived in an America which no longer exists for all practical purposes matter to how the people of 2014 look at the document?
 
TurtleDude said:
uh because we are demonstrating that the Democrats have twisted and mutated the words and intent and force of the Constitution
Click to expand...

And why does that matter to anybody but the hardest core zealot and rabid hater of the Democratic Party?
 
haymarket said:
But why? Why should the individual opinions of people who lived in an America which no longer exists for all practical purposes matter to how the people of 2014 look at the document?
Click to expand...

again you are evading and changing the issue

the issue is not how politicians view the 2A today

the issue is not how anti gun hacks want the 2A to read

the issue is not even how politicians in black robes have interpreted or distorted the Amendment

the issue is what was the purpose and meaning of the amendment as written
 
haymarket said:
But why? Why should the individual opinions of people who lived in an America which no longer exists for all practical purposes matter to how the people of 2014 look at the document?
Click to expand...

that's simple, if every generation gets to change the meaning of the Constitution, ...then it will have no meaning.
 
haymarket said:
And why does that matter to anybody but the hardest core zealot and rabid hater of the Democratic Party?
Click to expand...

anyone who wants the constitution to be enforced and respected as written would be concerned. sadly, its the Democrat party that has defecated upon the 2A and has attempted to limit what it says in order to advance its nefarious agenda of gun bannings
 
ernst barkmann said:
that's simple, if every generation gets to change the meaning of the Constitution, ...then it will have no meaning.
Click to expand...

those who think they have more minions with votes will always want to distort or limit the constitution
 
TurtleDude said:
you have been schooled on why that is a dishonest question

you avoided it the first time so I have to assume its now a dilatory and dishonest question

show me where an act of individual commerce was intended to covered by federal action and why this power was not apparent until Wickard
Click to expand...

aren't you forgetting about NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., which was a case that was decided 5 years prior to wickard?

and the case of Gibbons v. ogden was the first case invoking the commerce clause, not wickard.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
aren't you forgetting about NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., which was a case that was decided 5 years prior to wickard?

and the case of Gibbons v. ogden was the first case invoking the commerce clause, not wickard.
Click to expand...


again that is not relevant and Wickard was the poster child of FDR era court dishonesty
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL, I guess the concept of being a citizen is something you cannot understand. This country was founded on private citizens who determined that the King of England had infringed on their natural rights as free men

and what authority causes one to adopt the cloak of a running dog for government?
Click to expand...

i understand the concept of being a citizen. as citizens we delegate the responsibility of governing to people that we elect.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i understand the concept of being a citizen. as citizens we delegate the responsibility of governing to people that we elect.
Click to expand...

we don't give up our rights to make comments about the screw ups politicians or judges cause either

the government loses court cases all the time BTW. where do you think those cases come from
 
TurtleDude said:
we don't give up our rights to make comments about the screw ups politicians or judges cause either

the government loses court cases all the time BTW. where do you think those cases come from
Click to expand...

if the people are able to make their case before the courts and win, i think that is a sign that the system of government we have is functioning.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
the principles of the constitution remain the same, only the means of fullfilling those principles have changed.
Click to expand...


means of fulfilling?...this is not defined...... do that for me please.

principles embodied in the constitution

equality

unalienable rights

LIMITED GOVERNMENT

right to alter or abolish government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom