• 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
From past experience, the freedom of speech has a rational basis applied to it, and it works just fine.
Cite one instance.

I haven't heard of the three levels of scrutiny....
Yhen how could you possibly, with any credibility, make the statement, above?

but from what you're telling me, a rational basis is allowable, under the compelling state interest requirement, and further under the narrowly tailored requirement, it comes down to the semantics of a law.
No. Your understanding of this is utterly deficient.
That's not really your fault nor is it a point of degradation for you -- but it does mean that you really cannot have this conversation,

Screw "strict scrutiny" then. If you can convince the majority of Americans...
Fundamental rights should be subject to the whim of a simple majority?
Arent you, in a single-minded attempt to justify infringemens of the right to arms, throwing the baby out with th ebath water?

There are plenty of compelling interests in this case
That government, local state and federal, has been able to funtion w/o this restriction for more than a couple centuries indicates that this is not true,
 
BY defintion, this is necessarily wrong.

How is that wrong? Looking up the definition of the word:

1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Militia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Sounds like the standing military, complete with the possible draft, and law enforcement forces to me.
 
How is that wrong? Looking up the definition of the word:

1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Militia - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Sounds like the standing military, complete with the possible draft, and law enforcement forces to me.



Still not looking up the US code I cited I see. :ssst:
 
How is that wrong? Looking up the definition of the word:
Well, lets see:

1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
All three of these things precude the milita being the standing army and/or the police force because the militia isnt "standing" and the police isnt related to the military.
 
Still not looking up the US code I cited I see. :ssst:

He said by DEFINITION it was wrong. Not by code. If he meant something different, he should have said so.
 
He said by DEFINITION it was wrong. Not by code. If he meant something different, he should have said so.




so you have no point then as it relates to the topic and just have gotcha debate style left?


Even by your definition it refers to "all abled bodied males"...


The militia is all of the people.
 
Well, lets see:


All three of these things precude the milita being the standing army and/or the police force because the militia isnt "standing" and the police isnt related to the military.

What it doesn't preclude are the National Guard, military reservists and military draftees, none of which get to bring their guns from home. All of these are "well-organized". What you're really talking about is a bunch of back-woods yahoos with an agenda and firearms.

Actually, what really fits your bill is Al-Qaeda. Nice to know who you idolize.
 
so you have no point then as it relates to the topic and just have gotcha debate style left?


Even by your definition it refers to "all abled bodied males"...


The militia is all of the people.

Wasn't when the 2nd Amendment was written. While it doesn't specify, in practice it was only white able-bodied landowning males.
 
Wasn't when the 2nd Amendment was written. While it doesn't specify, in practice it was only white able-bodied landowning males.





21st Century: Federally-organized or not
In the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).[54]



O really?


....
 
Be sure to point out when you find the women-only militias or the black-only militias of the 1700s. I'll wait... a long, long, long time.
 
Be sure to point out when you find the women-only militias or the black-only militias of the 1700s. I'll wait... a long, long, long time.


Let me know when you decide on a spot for this.


goal-posts.jpg
 
What it doesn't preclude are the National Guard, military reservists and military draftees, none of which get to bring their guns from home.
All of these are part of the standing army. Not sure why you think this supports your point,

Actually, what really fits your bill is Al-Qaeda. Nice to know who you idolize.
If I were as poorly-informed in the issue of the right arms as you, I'd be forced to make such infantile comments as well. Except that I'm not infantile.
 
The original amendment clearly states, "Guns are only legal for a well regulated state militia..."

Original Second Amendment... 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...

Spin, spin, spin, little NRA spiders, but you can't convince me, or other unafraid clear thinkers, that street guns are constitutionally legal.

ricksfolly
 
The original amendment clearly states, "Guns are only legal for a well regulated state militia..."


The founding fathers,

The US Constitution,

SCOTUS

US Code


These are all things that disagree with you.


Original Second Amendment... 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...

Spin, spin, spin, little NRA spiders, but you can't convince me, or other unafraid clear thinkers, that street guns are constitutionally legal.

ricksfolly



What is a "street gun" and can you, point to any evidence of your hoplophobic claim?
 
The original amendment clearly states, "Guns are only legal for a well regulated state militia..."
Except that the text doesnt say anything of the kind.

Spin, spin, spin, little NRA spiders, but you can't convince me, or other....
...partisan bigots. We know.
 
The short version is, arguments for gun control should be debated on their merits, and not simply sidestepped by stating 'it's unconstitutional' and nothing else.
Except that the right to arms is a fundamental right, and so unless its 'utility' rises to the level of a compelling state interest, how "good" the idea might be isnt meaningful as the Constitution doesnt allow it. You cannot simply dismiss that.
 
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.

Again, I repeat the request, find me one historian who supports the standard model. If it was good history, there would be plenty. But it's a fiction made by and for pro-gun legal scholars and bears no resemblance to actual history. As I've argued in other threads, there is a a good historical case that the second protects a right to keep and bear arms (a term of art that is literally the same as saying "militia service"), but there is nothing in the text or in its history that would extend that right to the use of those arms for, say, hunting.



Should we have a right to own guns? Yes. But that is not what the founders wanted. But hey, we got rid of slavery and allow women to vote, and that isn't what the founders wanted either. Society progresses. But don't relieve yourself on my head and tell me it's raining. The founders didn't envision a fundamental right to gun ownership, they envisioned a right to militia service, period.

:no:


:prof:


What the Founders of the US said about guns:
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense
." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour."
(Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

On what is the militia:

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

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

James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment.

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped
." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

FOUNDING FATHERS INTENT BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION:

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United
States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms
." (Convention of the Commonwealth
of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

Noah Webster: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the
Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages
who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean
to be masters." (Source still being sought)

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)
 
What the Founders of the US said about guns:
But.... Thats not what Posner says!
It doesnt matter that he doesnt have any original source material to show that the founders didn't envision a fundamental right to gun ownership, they envisioned a right to militia service, period - Posner says so!!
:roll:
 
I also don't remember God coming down from Heaven and declaring Posner an irrefutable source, especially when writing unsourced editorials in a liberal magazine.
 
The founding fathers,

The US Constitution,

SCOTUS

US Code


These are all things that disagree with you.


What is a "street gun" and can you, point to any evidence of your hoplophobic claim?
..

You and the others seem to have blind spots when you read certain parts of the English language...

Read the second amendment again, this time without preconditioned bias...

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...

Maybe it would be beneficial for the blind spotees if the first part was officially deleted to simply read,

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

ricksfolly
 
..

You and the others seem to have blind spots when you read certain parts of the English language...

Read the second amendment again, this time without preconditioned bias...

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...

Maybe it would be beneficial for the blind spotees if the first part was officially deleted to simply read,

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

ricksfolly

Here ya go.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/85785-2nd-amendment-rights-17.html#post1059103955
 
..

You and the others seem to have blind spots when you read certain parts of the English language...

Read the second amendment again, this time without preconditioned bias...
Funny thing is, if liberals such as yourself read the 2nd like you do the rest of the constitution, there would be an entitlement program set up to tax the rich to provde guns for people that cannot afford them.
Precnditioned bias? Not from -this- side.
 
Last edited:
Funny thing is, if livberals such as yourself read the 2nd like you do the rest of the constitution, therw would be an entitlement program set up to tax the rich to provde guns for people that cannot afford them.Precnditioned bias? Not from -this- side.



:lamo :lamo :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom