• 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!

2nd amendment rights.

Are restrictions on the purchase/sale of firearms constitutional?


  • Total voters
    61
I never said it protected a "collective" right, but rather it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that is contingent on militia service. This isn't just something I made up, it's well understood among legal scholars, here is an excellent argument by Richard Posner, a legal scholar of the first order that all the standard model advocates around here seem to be very adept at ignoring.

Mostly because he doesn't even mention the Standard Model in that piece; his beef is with "originalism" in general. It would help to understand the Standard Model in order to know this, of course.


Again, I repeat the request, find me one historian who supports the standard model.

Joyce Lee Malcolm.


If it was good history, there would be plenty.

Given that the Standard Model is entirely a work of legal research concerning interpreting law, this argument is just . . . stupid. Indeed, it is like demanding that dentists weigh in on cancer research. Even for mouth cancer, that's laughable on its face.
 
"Wanted"...? By whom?

"Beneficial infringement"?
The right to arms is a fundamental right. As such, potential infringements upon it are put to a test of strict scrutiny - where, among other things, those who wish to limit the right must show that there isa "compelling state interest" in doing so -- in other words it has to be shown that the restriction in question is so necessary that the state cannot function without it.
It is impossible to make that case for any of the things you mentioned.

There are plenty of restrictions that don't have to be as strict as you mentioned to be allowed. As long as they are compelling to a point that their benefits outweigh their costs, the infringement is allowed. Perhaps the most basic, and reasonable, is a background check that restricts convicted felons from being able to buy guns. The way I see it, if you commit a crime of that magnitude, you forfeit this right. I also don't mind licenses so we can keep track of who has a gun and who doesn't, and so its a little easier to tell if a weapon is illegal.

"I have commented on how I'd be more than happy to apply the arguments that allow for those Constitutional restrictions as a template for what restrictions would be allowable regarding the right to arms.
The question is - would you?

I'm fine with basic regulations. After reading through this thread especially, it is apparent that on a constitutional basis, everything up to a LMG should be up for public purchase, but again, I don't think we can give these weapons away willy-nilly, we need to keep a list of peopel who have these weapons, and make sure psychopaths and criminals don't get them.
 
Whatever happened to the "well regulated" part?

If Guy Incognito were actually conversant with the Standard Model, he would not have thanked this post. You, I'm not worried about.
 
Whatever happened to the "well regulated" part?

Indeed. That's the thing Penn and Teller leave out in that ubiquitous video. The second amendment is a conditional sentence: 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. The first clause, the militia clause, sets up the condition that must be met that cause the latter clause to be valid.

Unless we are to assume that the Framers wrote the militia clause for no reason, it clearly sets up a condition. The logical corollary is that the second amendment has no force if "a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state." We don't need any militia today (the national guard is not an analogue), so based on the original intent the second amendment should be considered void. Thank God for activist Justices like Scalia.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. That's the thing Penn and Teller leave out in that ubiquitous video. The second amendment is a conditional sentence: 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. The first clause, the militia clause, sets up the condition that must be met that cause the latter clause to be valid.

Unless we are to assume that the Framers wrote the militia clause for no reason, it clearly sets up a condition. The logical corollary is that the second amendment has no force if "a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state." We don't need any militia today (the national guard is not an analogue), so based on the original intent the second amendment should be considered void. Thank God for activist Justices like Scalia.




even if you were right, who is the militia?


"libertarian" :roll:
 
I don't think regulations on gun sales is unconstitutional. Making tanks and sniper rifles illegal for citizen position doesn't prevent someone from bearing arms. The Constitutional right is protected.
 
Yet people of the day did own artillery, private citizens owned cannons and the like which they likewise brought to the nation's defense. None of this was supplied by a national or even local military.

that does not have any impact on my comments though it is true
 
I don't think regulations on gun sales is unconstitutional. Making tanks and sniper rifles illegal for citizen position doesn't prevent someone from bearing arms. The Constitutional right is protected.

that is stupid to lump a "sniper rifle" with a tank. do you have any clue what a sniper rifle is? did you know that Carlos Hathcock-one of the most celebrated Marine Snipers in history killed close to 100 enemy with a Winchester Model 70 in 30-06

do you know what one of the two most popular hunting rifles in the USA in the last 60 years is and what do you think is the most popular big game cartridge in the USA

Winchester 70 (along with the similar Remington 700) and 30-06

Do you know that GSgt Hathcock won the national target championship with that same set up?
 
Indeed. That's the thing Penn and Teller leave out in that ubiquitous video. The second amendment is a conditional sentence: 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. The first clause, the militia clause, sets up the condition that must be met that cause the latter clause to be valid.

Unless we are to assume that the Framers wrote the militia clause for no reason, it clearly sets up a condition. The logical corollary is that the second amendment has no force if "a well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state." We don't need any militia today (the national guard is not an analogue), so based on the original intent the second amendment should be considered void. Thank God for activist Justices like Scalia.

Here is the dishonesty of the posts guy makes along with many statist politicians. They say they fully support the second amendment and t hen interpret it in ways that limit the citizenry in ways the founders would have loathed.

His nonsense that militia service is needed to exercise the right is idiotic as his his related claim that since the militia is no longer needed, the second is no longer needed. wrong again
 
Indeed. That's the thing Penn and Teller leave out in that ubiquitous video. The second amendment is a conditional sentence: 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. The first clause, the militia clause, sets up the condition that must be met that cause the latter clause to be valid.

It's not setting up a condition that must be met for the right to be active. The right is active. It's setting purpose to the right. It's in part a reminder to us all. A well regulated militia is a necessity to a free state. It's still true. So do your part and actively participate in militia duty.
 
I don't think regulations on gun sales is unconstitutional. Making tanks and sniper rifles illegal for citizen position doesn't prevent someone from bearing arms. The Constitutional right is protected.

What's wrong with sniper rifles? It's the best way to prevent the ATFE from getting to your front door.
 
It's not setting up a condition that must be met for the right to be active. The right is active. It's setting purpose to the right. It's in part a reminder to us all. A well regulated militia is a necessity to a free state. It's still true. So do your part and actively participate in militia duty.

But there is no militia, it's been replaced by a standing military. Militia service as the founders knew it isn't even a possibility any more.

The second amendment doesn't say anything about a well regulated army, and the Founders had grave reservations about standing armies and the threat they posed to liberty (yet another concern of theirs that has no bearing on modernity).

I don't know how you can read the second amendment as anything other than a conditional sentence. Try diagramming it. It's grammatically a conditional. Let's just put any agenda aside for a second and be logical here.
 
Last edited:
What's hilarious is that he says "Funny how the standard model is only supported by some legal scholars and not any historians, huh?" -- when the historians who do support the Standard Model are often derided as not being legal scholars. Of course, if he actually had any idea what he's talking about, he'd have known that.

(Besides, it's like saying "sure, a few doctors claim that smoking causes cancer, but funny that no dentists do!" :lamo )

he's full of it as well-he ought to read Joyce malcom's works
 
But there is no militia, it's been replaced by a standing military. Militia service as the founders knew it isn't even a possibility any more.

The second amendment doesn't say anything about a well regulated army, and the Founders had grave reservations about standing armies and the threat they posed to liberty (yet another concern of theirs that has no bearing on modernity).

I don't know how you can read the second amendment as anything other than a conditional sentence. Try diagramming it. It's grammatically a conditional. Let's just put any agenda aside for a second and be logical here.

so the united states code section that describes and references the militia has been repealed? I think not.

YOu are wrong btw and no one really supports your statist interpretation. and tell me Guy-what part of the constitution overcomes the tenth amendment on this issue?
 
But there is no militia, it's been replaced by a standing military. Militia service as the founders knew it isn't even a possibility any more.

Yet, 22 states officially maintain them. Oops.

I don't know how you can read the second amendment as anything other than a conditional sentence. Try diagramming it. It's grammatically a conditional. Let's just put any agenda aside for a second and be logical here.

Let's.

WHAT THE FRAMERS INTENDED: A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHT TO "BEAR ARMS"

Literary Analysis
 
I never said it protected a "collective" right, but rather it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that is contingent on militia service.
Anticipating you;d say that, I asked you to:
Please cite any of the people involved in the writing and ratification of the 2nd that argued ... that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, ones actions must be in direct relation to service in the militia.
Well?
 
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 
that is stupid to lump a "sniper rifle" with a tank. do you have any clue what a sniper rifle is? did you know that Carlos Hathcock-one of the most celebrated Marine Snipers in history killed close to 100 enemy with a Winchester Model 70 in 30-06

do you know what one of the two most popular hunting rifles in the USA in the last 60 years is and what do you think is the most popular big game cartridge in the USA

Winchester 70 (along with the similar Remington 700) and 30-06

Do you know that GSgt Hathcock won the national target championship with that same set up?

I was just using an illustration... All I'm saying is that it isn't unconstitutional to limit the sale of guns. It isn't infringing on someone's rights to bear arms to restrict what arms they want to bear with reasonable and understandable restrictions. Should we take the constitution to say that the right to bear arms includes nuclear arms?
 
Anticipating you;d say that, I asked you to:
Please cite any of the people involved in the writing and ratification of the 2nd that argued ... that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, ones actions must be in direct relation to service in the militia.
Well?

better yet-he should point to what clause of the USSC that delegates to the federal government the power to infringe on this issue.
EVEN IF THE SECOND AMENDMENT is what he says it is he has a real problem with the tenth amendment
 
There are plenty of restrictions that don't have to be as strict as you mentioned to be allowed.
You clearly dont understand what "strict scrutiny" means.

As long as they are compelling to a point that their benefits outweigh their costs...
No..... thats NOT the standard od scrutiny affordaded to fundamental rights. Thats "Rational basis" andis the least stringent of the three levels of scrutiny.

Perhaps the most basic, and reasonable, is a background check that restricts convicted felons from being able to buy guns.
As I have said innumerable times:
Background checks are a form of prior restraint. Prior restraint in an infringement. Infringements are not allowed.
Bacjground checks will never bass strict scrutiny.

I also don't mind licenses so we can keep track of who has a gun and who doesn't...
That's nice... but doesnt change the fact that it creates a precondition of aright not inherent to same -- and thus, an infringement.
There's no compelling state uinterest served by the government knowing who has guns.
 
Back
Top Bottom