• 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 .
haymarket said:
I spoke to your issue head on. If I had been any more direct you would have marks upon you from the direct impact.
Click to expand...


you have shown yourself to me wrong over and over


you stated rights are given to us by the bill of rights.....if that was so then the USSC in 1833 when have taken Barron's case, but they stated the 5th did not apply to Barron......then why?..... if the bill of rights gives us our rights.
 
haymarket said:
... and .........
Click to expand...

well using your standard for interpreting the 2A there is no way any of the clauses you claim authorizes Federal Gun control actually does so
 
ernst barkmann said:
you have shown yourself to me wrong over and over


you stated rights are given to us by the bill of rights.....if that was so then the USSC in 1833 when have taken Barron's case, but they stated the 5th did not apply to Barron......then why?..... if the bill of rights gives us our rights.
Click to expand...

YOu tell me. Its your interest - not mine. Where in the decision did the Court say that the Bill of Rights does not apply to American citizens? it seems to be a decision that did previous little other than save Baltimore some money and was ignored by many during the short 35 years that it was around before it was made irrelevant by the 14th Amendment.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
well using your standard for interpreting the 2A there is no way any of the clauses you claim authorizes Federal Gun control actually does so
Click to expand...

why is that?
 
haymarket said:
why is that?
Click to expand...

more evasion. You claimed that "shall not be infringed" does not prevent "infringements" because "infringements" are not mentioned (LOL)

so where is a power to control firearms stated in Sec 8?

it isn't so it doesn't exist
 
TurtleDude said:
more evasion. You claimed that "shall not be infringed" does not prevent "infringements" because "infringements" are not mentioned (LOL)

so where is a power to control firearms stated in Sec 8?

it isn't so it doesn't exist
Click to expand...

Do you mean other than the first score or two score times I pointed it out to you?
 
TurtleDude said:
more evasion. You claimed that "shall not be infringed" does not prevent "infringements" because "infringements" are not mentioned (LOL)

so where is a power to control firearms stated in Sec 8?

it isn't so it doesn't exist
Click to expand...

You cannot answer a simple question? Why is that?
 
haymarket said:
Do you mean other than the first score or two score times I pointed it out to you?
Click to expand...

you merely claimed those clauses allowed it. reading them, and using your "exact words" test, your argument has no merit since gun control powers are not mentioned.

see that is why I find your arguments completely dishonest. You claim "shall not be infringed" does not prevent infringements yet you claim that clauses that don't even hint at gun control powers actually confer that power to the federal government

which means you have no standard or consistency when it comes to interpreting what the founders intended. You just do whatever you think supports government restrictions on our rights
 
haymarket said:
You cannot answer a simple question? Why is that?
Click to expand...

Its really silly to watch you constantly play that game when your answers are always evasive, invariably contradictory to what you have posted before and you constantly fail to answer questions as well

I have always been consistent on this issue

you have not been. Your only consistency is to oppose citizens' rights
 
TurtleDude said:
you merely claimed those clauses allowed it. reading them, and using your "exact words" test, your argument has no merit since gun control powers are not mentioned.
Click to expand...

A word by reading of Article I Section 8 funds several clauses that can be employed to regulate firearms. I have provided them for you many many many times now.
 
TurtleDude said:
I did, you just don't like the answer
Click to expand...

your opinion is not an answer based on anything other than your own belief system. As such, it is fairly irrelevant.
 
TurtleDude said:
I have always been consistent on this issue

you have not been. Your only consistency is to oppose citizens' rights
Click to expand...

The one thing you have been consistent about - and I have to give you credit for it - is your complete inability to find any real world existence for these so called pre-existing natural rights you believe in. that has been entirely consistent. No matter how many times I challenge you to produce where they actually existed and no matter how many t imes you are unable to come up with anything - you still hold fast and hard to your beliefs and never let reality in the way.
 
haymarket said:
The one thing you have been consistent about - and I have to give you credit for it - is your complete inability to find any real world existence for these so called pre-existing natural rights you believe in. that has been entirely consistent. No matter how many times I challenge you to produce where they actually existed and no matter how many t imes you are unable to come up with anything - you still hold fast and hard to your beliefs and never let reality in the way.
Click to expand...

still diverting by trying to pretend the issue is whether natural rights exist

a completely worthless inquiry
 
haymarket said:
your opinion is not an answer based on anything other than your own belief system. As such, it is fairly irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Haymarket, no one criticizes my consistency or the honesty of my posts on this subject while your answers are constantly destroyed as being contradictory, evasive etc?

The fact is, my positions on the 2A and the Sec. 8 clauses are consistent with the language in those sections, and more importantly, the belief system of the founders.

Your position is a complete fail because your positions twist the language, require ever changing standards (from "THE EXACT LANGUAGE Nonsense as applied to the 2A to the "I THINK I CAN INFER A POWER in Sec 8) and is completely and totally hostile and contradictory to the entire premise upon which the Constitution is based upon and the stated and patently obvious belief structure of the founders
 
haymarket said:
A word by reading of Article I Section 8 funds several clauses that can be employed to regulate firearms. I have provided them for you many many many times now.
Click to expand...

wrong, more dishonest twisting. YOU CAN read them to allow that if

1) you ignore the "exact language"

2) you ignore the plain meaning

3) you make up stuff that is not even HINTED in the language

4) you complete ignore the entire premise underlying the Constitution

5) you ignore the founders' main assumptions and beliefs

6) and most pathetically, you work backwards and use a system of interpretation that is completely opposite of how you interpret the 2A.

In other words, in over to use those clauses, you have to reject reality, reject an honest reading and make stuff up

and other than the commerce clause, no one in 80 years has pretended that the other clauses work
 
haymarket said:
And why is that?




The first two are the most common usage. They apply perfectly and you have given us no reason not connected to political ideology or belief or simply outright denial why they do not apply.





Only if one insists on removing the first two first more common usage definitions, ignoring them for political reasons and focusing only on the third to produce a result that runs contrary to the common usage of the day.



That is an ideological and political position not based on the definition provided giving the most common usage of the day.
Click to expand...
What the hell?

When you're trying to determine whether a word applies, you look through the various definitions to find the one that applies.

You don't dismiss it just because the first two do not apply.

Seriously, what the ****?
 
The Mark said:
What the hell?

When you're trying to determine whether a word applies, you look through the various definitions to find the one that applies.

You don't dismiss it just because the first two do not apply.

Seriously, what the ****?
Click to expand...

I did just what you suggest. The first one applies perfectly.
 
TurtleDude said:
Why do you think Haymarket, no one criticizes my consistency or the honesty of my posts on this subject while your answers are constantly destroyed as being contradictory, evasive etc?
Click to expand...

Because you and others have successfully achieved exactly the environment you want here through years of work and careful control.
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong, more dishonest twisting. YOU CAN read them to allow that if

1) you ignore the "exact language"

2) you ignore the plain meaning

3) you make up stuff that is not even HINTED in the language

4) you complete ignore the entire premise underlying the Constitution

5) you ignore the founders' main assumptions and beliefs

6) and most pathetically, you work backwards and use a system of interpretation that is completely opposite of how you interpret the 2A.

In other words, in over to use those clauses, you have to reject reality, reject an honest reading and make stuff up

and other than the commerce clause, no one in 80 years has pretended that the other clauses work
Click to expand...

nope. All I have done is refer to the US Constitution as it is written.
 
The Mark said:
What the hell?

When you're trying to determine whether a word applies, you look through the various definitions to find the one that applies.

You don't dismiss it just because the first two do not apply.

Seriously, what the ****?
Click to expand...

one also looks at the context. the founders believed in natural rights. the definition used by the anti gun poster is designed to further anti gun laws being "constitutional" yet the definitional choice is completely hostile to the entire foundation upon which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is premised upon.
 
haymarket said:
nope. All I have done is refer to the US Constitution as it is written.
Click to expand...

no that is not true. You try to claim that the words in the 2A use definitions that completely undercut what the founders clearly intended. TO say that their definition of infringed would allow all sorts of actions by the government is unmitigated nonsense.

and even worse is pretending that Sec 8 can be twisted to say it intended federal gun control
 
haymarket said:
I did just what you suggest. The first one applies perfectly.
Click to expand...
To the situation in question, for ****s sake.

Obviously the first two definitions apply to the amendment, if a question arises that fits said definition(s) (as in, banning of the right to bear, which has happened and been overturned).
But so does the third definition, for example if you question whether it is infringement to limit specific types of weapons and/or accessories.
To determine whether that is the case, you examine the definitions, dismissing the first two because they obviously do not apply to the question at hand.
Then you reach the third definition, and see that it DOES apply to the situation at hand.
Thus you conclude that the term "infringement" does indeed apply to such laws.


That said, we have "acceptable infringement", these days - I don't think that more than a small minority of persons would support absolutely unfettered arms ownership rights.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
then why are you pushing them?
Click to expand...

because anyone who understands the constitution also understands the belief system of the men who wrote it. when you do that, you cannot possibly claim that they intended what you claim they did nor can you possibly HONESTLY claim that their choice of words would mean what you claim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom