• 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!

If the 2nd Amendment goes away....

Do guns become illegal to own if the 2nd is abolished?

  • Total voters
    43
Nap said:
Infringe means to violate or encroach on. You can't remove a right as they are inalienable, governments can (and typically do) violate the rights of the people. The amendments don't grant rights, they merely limit the government from violating them. Without the amendments, there is nothing to prevent the government from violating your rights. The court recognizes that the right to privacy and due process are protected by the constitution, if you remove the amendments that protect those rights then there is nothing to prevent the government from violating those rights.
Click to expand...

this thread is about banning so we will stick with that

the u.s.congress at any time can create and pass legislation to ban any right they chose, if the president signs it is becomes law, however that law would find itself before the court quickly.

the USSC does not need the 2nd amendment any longer because they long since have recognized the right exist in the people.

has you quoted one of my posting, the right is only recognized, it is not granted bestowed or given to the people by congress, as stated rights are not law but unwritten law.

again how do you "unrecognized something"

the congress creates privileges via federal statute, the congress is granting you a privilege which at any time they can take away, but congress is not granting you a right by statute or the constitution

recognizes rights cannot be repealed, meaning you cannot eliminate a right which is already recognized.

you are looking at the 2nd as law which is granting the right to bear arms, by saying if the law is gone the right is gone after you have acknowledged rights are only recognized.


"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe"
John Adams
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
this thread is about banning so we will stick with that

the u.s.congress at any time can create and pass legislation to ban any right they chose, if the president signs it is becomes law, however that law would find itself before the court quickly.

the USSC does not need the 2nd amendment any longer because they long since have recognized the right exist in the people.

has you quoted one of my posting, the right is only recognized, it is not granted bestowed or given to the people by congress, as stated rights are not law but unwritten law.

again how do you "unrecognized something"

the congress creates privileges via federal statute, the congress is granting you a privilege which at any time they can take away, but congress is not granting you a right by statute or the constitution

recognizes rights cannot be repealed, meaning you cannot eliminate a right which is already recognized.

you are looking at the 2nd as law which is granting the right to bear arms, by saying if the law is gone the right is gone after you have acknowledged rights are only recognized.


"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe"
John Adams
Click to expand...

No, the 2nd amendment does not grant the right, it merely prevents the government from violating that right. If you read just about any court decision involving rights they clearly state that the rights in question are protected by the amendments. For instance, if the first amendment were repealed then you could ban speech or institute a state religion as the government is no longer limited against imposing on the right to free speech.
 
Nap said:
No, the 2nd amendment does not grant the right, it merely prevents the government from violating that right. If you read just about any court decision involving rights they clearly state that the rights in question are protected by the amendments. For instance, if the first amendment were repealed then you could ban speech or institute a state religion as the government is no longer limited against imposing on the right to free speech.
Click to expand...

by stating that you are saying rights only exist if the law allows them, therefore they would be contingent on government approval

if the 1st amendment were repealed and the congress made a law banning free speech, then the case would go before the court, the court has already recognized that free speech is inherent in the people.

AGAIN....how does the court reverse a right they have recognized since this nation was founded, how do you un-reconize a right................this is a question i am asking, and you are not answering


You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe"
John Adams




NOTE: nothing on earth prevents the congress from passing ANY legislation which can become law, however a law which would eliminate a right, would not survive the court, and that it the subject of the thread ..............the elimination.
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
by stating that you are saying rights only exist if the law allows them.

if the 1st amendment were repealed and the congress made a law banning free speech, then the case would go before the court, the court has already recognized that free speech is inherent in the people.

AGAIN....how does the court reverse a right they have recognized since this nation was founded, how do you un-reconized a right


You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe"
John Adams
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how I can explain it in simpler terms for you to be able to understand, so someone else will have to try explain how it works to you.
 
Nap said:
I have already answered and explained how it works multiple times.
Click to expand...

you have not answered my question at all!

you are in error.

you say a right is recognized, however in the same breath you say if the amendment is gone the right is gone, therefore in your words, a right is contingent on law allowing it.

as stated the CONGRESS can create any legislation and pass it where the president can make it law...nothing prevents that, BUT the court is not going to un-recognized a right which they have help up since this nation was founded....... the elimination of a right the court STATED MANY TIMES exist

the USSC does not need an amendment.

the 9th amendment covers many rights which are not written down.
 
Master PO said:
you have not answered my question at all!

you are in error.

you say a right is recognized, however in the same breath you say if the amendment is gone the right is gone, therefore in your words, a right is contingent on law allowing it.

as stated the CONGRESS can create any legislation and pass it where the president can make it law...nothing prevents that, BUT the court is not going to un-recognized a right which they have help up since this nation was founded....... the elimination of a right the court STATED MANY TIMES exist

the USSC does not need an amendment.

the 9th amendment covers many rights which are not written down.
Click to expand...

Rights are independent of government.

The constitution limits the power of government.

Without said limits they have the power to violate your rights.
 
Nap said:
Rights are independent of government.

The constitution limits the power of government.

Without said limits they have the power to violate your rights.
Click to expand...



this does not answer my question.

the constitution is meant to limit government, HOWEVER nothing prevents the federal government from creating ANY law they choose, any law. but whether that law remains is affect, is up to the court, and the court is not going to eliminate a right which they have based many decisions that it exist and is inherent in man.
 
Master PO said:
this does not answer my question.

the constitution is meant to limit government, HOWEVER nothing prevents the federal government from creating ANY law they choose, any law. but whether that law remains is affect, is up to the court, and the court is not going to eliminate a right which they have based many decisions that it exist and is inherent in man.
Click to expand...


Actually, the constitution states that no laws are to be created that violate the rights of the people. When it happens and is challenged in court the court tells the government that they couldn't due whichever amendment it was the law violated.

A court doesn't recognize a right, a court recognizes that a right is protected by the constitution, take away the constitution then there is no protection.

As an example, people in majority Muslim countries have the same rights as us. The problem is they have nothing to prevent their governments from violating those rights.
 
Nap said:
Actually, the constitution states that no laws are to be created that violate the rights of the people. When it happens and is challenged in court the court tells the government that they couldn't due whichever amendment it was the law violated.

A court doesn't recognize a right, a court recognizes that a right is protected by the constitution, take away the constitution then there is no protection.

As an example, people in majority Muslim countries have the same rights as us. The problem is they have nothing to prevent their governments from violating those rights.
Click to expand...


incorrect, the court has recognized the right to privacy, the right to free expression, right to a jury, rights of entities such as businesses and they are not listed in amendments.

the countries you refer to ,yes the people have rights but the State does not recognize them.

our constitution recognizes some rights, and the court has reaffirmed those rights in legal challenges.

how can the court un- recognize a right they say exist in man in many decisions the court has made in our history

we are not talking of a 5 day waiting period, a ban on magazines or bump stocks, we are talking the elimination of a right.

the court is not going to eliminate a right... they said does exist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom