• 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
Chevydriver asks "who here said that" ???/ that would be Goobieman.

The only way leftists can get anything does is to exploit the "too old, too vague, and too open to someones interpretation: nature of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Taking these one at a time.
 
haymarket said:
So the Constitution is NOT open to interpretation?
Click to expand...




Thank god no.... If it were open to "interpetation" it would be meaningless. We have a constitutional proccess to amend said constitution.... We would not need this if it was open to "interpretation" based on the current societies "feelings" and "whims".
 
molten_dragon said:
As I specifically pointed out in the OP, that's not the question I'm asking.

Is it or is it not constitutional to restrict the sale/purchase of firearms?
Click to expand...

if you make it harder to purchase firearms, in effect you make it harder to keep and bear them. how can you keep and bear arms if you are restricted from buying them?
 
haymarket said:
noun
the action of explaining the meaning of something
Click to expand...
You mean like clarifying the meaning of the term "arms" as it is used in the 2nd?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Thank god no.... If it were open to "interpetation" it would be meaningless. We have a constitutional proccess to amend said constitution.... We would not need this if it was open to "interpretation" based on the current societies "feelings" and "whims".
Click to expand...

Then what do you think it is that the Supreme Court does in explaining the language of the Constitution?
 
Goobie

you did say this

The only way leftists can get anything does is to exploit the "too old, too vague, and too open to someones interpretation: nature of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So which is it please
you agree with the leftists you criticize that the Constitution is open to interpretation
you agree that the Constitution is NOT open to interpretation
 
haymarket said:
Then what do you think it is that the Supreme Court does in explaining the language of the Constitution?
Click to expand...




Oh my bad. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you werent creatig a strawman argument. I withdraw my previous post to you. Perhals you can apply an honest post next time somwe can have an intellectual discussion.
 
haymarket said:
Then what do you think it is that the Supreme Court does in explaining the language of the Constitution?
Click to expand...
They explain the language of the constitution.:shrug:

There's a clear difference between taking a given situation and applying the constitution to it and deciding that you want to be able to do someting and then finding a way to bend the Constitution around it.
 
Strawman????? What the devil are you talking about?

Just cannot admit you were wrong can you?
 
haymarket said:
you did say this
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. However, what I said is not a statement that the Constitution is not open to interpretation - it is a statement describing the only way leftists can get things done.
 
haymarket said:
Then what do you think it is that the Supreme Court does in explaining the language of the Constitution?
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court is not tasked with interpreting the Constitution. It is tasked with examining laws and determining whether those laws are at variance with the Constitution. Your idea that the Court interprets the Constitution is a non-starter.
 
Goobieman said:
They explain the language of the constitution.:shrug:

There's a clear difference between taking a given situation and applying the constitution to it and deciding that you want to be able to do someting and then finding a way to bend the Constitution around it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I imagine that difference is ones own perspectives and beliefs about a certain issue and if the current SC interpretation agrees with you or not.
 
Coronado said:
The Supreme Court is not tasked with interpreting the Constitution. It is tasked with examining laws and determining whether those laws are at variance with the Constitution. Your idea that the Court interprets the Constitution is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

It's not even really tasked with doing that. It's tasked with being a court. It doesn't actually do all that much determination of constitutionality.
 
haymarket said:
Yes, I imagine that difference is ones own perspectives and beliefs about a certain issue and if the current SC interpretation agrees with you or not.
Click to expand...



And there you go with the dishonest posting. Inserting "current" now.



Just make an honest point for once and debate it on its merits for the love of god. :roll:
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Yes, I imagine that difference is ones own perspectives and beliefs about a certain issue and if the current SC interpretation agrees with you or not.
Click to expand...
No, not really. The dead gieaway is wheen the court uses terms like "eminations" and "peumbras".
 
Harshaw said:
It's not even really tasked with doing that. It's tasked with being a court. It doesn't actually do all that much determination of constitutionality.
Click to expand...
Really what it is is the ultimate appellate court, so yeah, I agree.
 
Last edited:
Coronado said:
The Supreme Court is not tasked with interpreting the Constitution. It is tasked with examining laws and determining whether those laws are at variance with the Constitution. Your idea that the Court interprets the Constitution is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of your credentials to make this determination or if you are merely giving a laymans uneducated opinion. This source says it is very much a power of the SC to interpret the Constitution.

Answers.com - What are the powers of the US Supreme Court

of course, they are probably not a poster here who leans Libertarian which disqualfies them in the eyes of some here.

and this

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I am not aware of your credentials to make this determination or if you are merely giving a laymans uneducated opinion. This source says it is very much a power of the SC to interpret the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Judicial Review came about in Marbury v Madison, where the court decided that it had the power to decide that it had the power of Judicial Review.
Prior to that no such power existed.
 
No person is discussing Judicial review. We are talking about interpreting the Constitution.

here is another source that says this is what they do

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/supreme_court.htm

to take the position that the SC does NOT interpret the laws is to deny two centuries of exactly what they have done. I really cannot believe this discussion is even taking place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom