• 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!

Bullet Control

What do you think about putting stricter regulations on bullets rather than guns?

  • I am pro-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • I am pro-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.

    Votes: 28 84.8%

  • I am anti-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • I am anti-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • Total voters
    33
Cilogy said:
Ok, now that many people have thrown some stones at me, let me pick them up and set them aside.

I think we are slowly reaching the tipping point in gun violence. Something has to be done. Am I the one to decide? No. I don't want to be.

I don't think we should ban bullets or or guns, but I think increasing the prices on bullets rather than guns would work better. Now, I am not offering this suggestion as a way to "sneakily bypass the 2nd amendment," but more as a way to stop gun violence from going out of control.

That's just what I think. I have a right to an opinion too.
Click to expand...



So you want to tax guns and ammo so that only the rich can afford guns. Interesting idea. :roll:
 
disneydude said:
I love how you leave out the first part of the text of the second amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and then argue that it is "crystal clear".

While I don't favor gun control, just like much of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is subject to interpretation and is certainly not as "crystal clear" as you would claim.

Also, the types of weapons available today could not have been contemplated in any shape/form by the original writers of the Constitution so the types of "arms" they referred to is also subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...




It's clear to those who are honest about the 2nd amendment.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM"]YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment[/ame]


Please educate yourself.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So you want to tax guns and ammo so that only the rich can afford guns. Interesting idea. :roll:
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with letting the rich have guns. After all, they can afford armed security anyway-- assuming they're not also in government, in which case we pay for their armed security for them.

It's the rest of us who have to worry about it.
 
Goobieman said:
Sure it does. It protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, part of which is the use of that right in personal self-defense. It may have been done so that said right can always be exercised collectively, but to ensure that, they protected the right at the individual level.
Click to expand...

Yet it never mentions "personal self-defense" whatsoever, it specifies the right to bear arms in the context of national defense, those militias that are noted as an essential part of the nation. You're putting words into the founding father's mouths and asserting that self-defense was part of their intent when, if you just read the words that they wrote, it doesn't appear.
 
Cephus said:
Yet it never mentions "personal self-defense" whatsoever, it specifies the right to bear arms in the context of national defense, those militias that are noted as an essential part of the nation. You're putting words into the founding father's mouths and asserting that self-defense was part of their intent when, if you just read the words that they wrote, it doesn't appear.
Click to expand...
Two things:
  1. The 2nd Amendment does not "specify" the right to keep and bear arms, it acknowledges the right's natural existence and declares it inviolate.
  2. The 2nd Amendment justifies said declaration by pointing out the necessity of an armed population for the "security of a free State." The virtue of armed citizens is thus clearly not just protecting the nation from foreign foes, but protecting the nation's liberty as well. Self defense is the ultimate expression of personal liberty.
 
Cephus said:
Yet it never mentions "personal self-defense" whatsoever, it specifies the right to bear arms in the context of national defense, those militias that are noted as an essential part of the nation.
Click to expand...
The 2nd protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
"The right to keep and bear arms" covers more than just service in the miltia.
 
Goobieman said:
The 2nd protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
"The right to keep and bear arms" covers more than just service in the miltia.
Click to expand...

It mentions the right of the people to keep and bear arms AS THE SECOND HALF OF A SENTENCE! You don't get to ignore the first half of the sentence because it doesn't get you what you want.

I can't believe I have to point that out. :doh
 
And you don't get to call the militia clause the operative, functional part of the Amendment just to get what YOU want.
 
Cephus said:
It mentions the right of the people to keep and bear arms AS THE SECOND HALF OF A SENTENCE! You don't get to ignore the first half of the sentence because it doesn't get you what you want.

I can't believe I have to point that out. :doh
Click to expand...
Correction--you can disregard the entirety of that "first half". The independent clause of the sentence reads as follows: "....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first part of the sentence is neither independent or subordinate clause. The particple "being necessary to the security of a free State" is either descriptive of "A well regulated militia" or "the right (of the people)...."

If the latter, it merely justifies the importance of the right to bear arms and explicates why is must not be infringed upon by government.

If the former, then the noun phrase "a well regulated Militia" is positioned as synonymous with and equivalent to "the people"--which again explicates the importance of not infringing upon the right.

In all cases, the independent clause stands on its own: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

(I am now absolutely convinced that schools need to bring back diagramming sentences to instruction in the English language :mrgreen:)
 
Cephus said:
It mentions the right of the people to keep and bear arms AS THE SECOND HALF OF A SENTENCE! You don't get to ignore the first half of the sentence because it doesn't get you what you want.
Click to expand...
I have explaied my position to sufficiently negate your argument.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is protected, not "The right of the people to participate in the militia"

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, in total, was protected; participation in the militia is a subset of that right.

The REST of the right includes things like personal self-sefense, hunting, etc.

I can't believe I have to point that out.
 
Goobieman said:
I have explaied my position to sufficiently negate your argument.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is protected, not "The right of the people to participate in the militia"

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, in total, was protected; participation in the militia is a subset of that right.

The REST of the right includes things like personal self-sefense, hunting, etc.

I can't believe I have to point that out.
Click to expand...

You keep asserting that, you just cannot demonstrate it from the wording of the second amendment. I'm not arguing that those shouldn't be rights, just that you cannot get them solely from the second amendment. It simply supports no such thing.
 
Harshaw said:
And you don't get to call the militia clause the operative, functional part of the Amendment just to get what YOU want.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with what anyone wants, it has to do with acknowledging what the text says, and it makes a single statement that gun rights advocates ignore half of because it invalidates their arguments.

There are plenty of arguments that can be made for gun rights, many of which I'll agree with entirely, but this isn't one of them.
 
Cephus said:
You keep asserting that, you just cannot demonstrate it from the wording of the second amendment.
Click to expand...
That's OK -- I dont mind repeating myeslf.

It says:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
not
"The right of the people to bear arms in service of the militia"

Unless you can show that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" includes doing so ONLY when in militia service, there is no way to argue that the "right to keep and bear arms" excludes all of the OTHER things you can legitimately do with a firearm.

You're arguing that the founders protected the right of the people to have and use weapons in defense of their town, county and state, but not their homes, their families or themselves. Thats completely unsupportable.
 
Goobieman said:
That's OK -- I dont mind repeating myeslf.

It says:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
not
"The right of the people to bear arms in service of the militia"

Unless you can show that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" includes doing so ONLY when in militia service, there is no way to argue that the "right to keep and bear arms" excludes all of the OTHER things you can legitimately do with a firearm.

You're arguing that the founders protected the right of the people to have and use weapons in defense of their town, county and state, but not their homes, their families or themselves. Thats completely unsupportable.
Click to expand...

No, it says, and I quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is a single sentence and must be taken as such. It is a single idea and taken in the context in which it was written, it has a specific meaning. Your desire to strip off the first 13 words of the sentence only proves your dishonesty.
 
Cephus said:
No, it says, and I quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is a single sentence and must be taken as such. It is a single idea and taken in the context in which it was written, it has a specific meaning. Your desire to strip off the first 13 words of the sentence only proves your dishonesty.
Click to expand...
Nothng here negates anything I said, or the point that I made.
 
Ok I've like completely changed my opinion on this topic now.

Thanks Goobieman. :)

(I'm not being sarcastic)
 
Cephus said:
That is a single sentence and must be taken as such. It is a single idea and taken in the context in which it was written, it has a specific meaning. Your desire to strip off the first 13 words of the sentence only proves your dishonesty.
Click to expand...
No, it is not a single idea. There are two distinct ideas expressed in the sentence:

1. The right of the people, who form the militia, to keep and bear arms is necessary for the security of a free State.

2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

One sentence, but two ideas. The first serves as justification for the second, which is the legal proscription binding upon government.
 
It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, that to believe the 2A does not contain an individual right to keep and carry arms for all lawful purposes, you must:

Believe that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and etc Amendments of the Bill of Rights are all individual rights of the people protecting all lawful expressions of free speech, the press, religion, assembly, vs seach/seizure, etc...

But the 2nd, that says "the people" explicitly, isn't.


The first Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Yet this has been upheld widely to restrict the STATES from having an official religion or endorsing one over another, even though it doesn't say that. Almost every other right in the BoR is interpreted in favor of the individual when there is any question or doubt...except the 2nd, which says "the right of the people" plainly.

Disingenuous, says I.


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.
Click to expand...

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
-Thomas Paine.
Click to expand...

G.
 
Last edited:
Cephus, read anything concerning the Founding Fathers and you will obtain a unique - not to mention accurate - understanding of the Second Amendment, because it is you who is willfully ignoring context by failing to include the personal interpretation of the men who drafted said Amendment. The Founding Fathers' view on the Second Amendment was explicit; it was an inviolate personal right without exception or qualification. Not a one can be quoted as saying otherwise. Jefferson had this to say:

"...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure. [1]"

There is nothing ambiguous about that statement and there is nothing to suggest any of the Founding Fathers thought otherwise. For your argument to hold water we must first believe that the Founding Fathers were just prone to bloviating. Why would they include a disparate interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms in the US Constitution? It defies reason.

[1] - Transcript of letter: Thomas Jefferson to William Smith - Thomas Jefferson (Library of Congress Exhibition)
 
Goshin said:
It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, that to believe the 2A does not contain an individual right to keep and carry arms for all lawful purposes, you must...
Click to expand...
You must also ignore the ruling of the SCotUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom