• 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!

The 2nd Amendment applies to all weapons.

Cordelier said:
Blah blah blah de frigging blah.... Answer the damn question!
Click to expand...

Blah?

How can a right that pre-exists government be realized only via government? That's stupid. Think about it.
 
TurtleDude said:
That both of you refuse to answer this point-how can a right that pre-exists government, require membership in a government-run entity, in order to vest....
Click to expand...
I've answered this question a hundred times. It doesn't. You do not need to be in a government-run entity in order for the RKBA to vest. I never said you did had to be in a government-run entity in order for the right to vest, for the question to then be relevant. That I've answered your question yet again here will not stop you from asking it again in the furture. We could speculate about memory problems resulting from age...
 
ecofarm said:
Blah?

How can a right that pre-exists government be realized only via government? That's stupid. Think about it.
Click to expand...

Because the individual right that pre-exists government is a right to self-defense.... it can be justifiably claimed as a 9th Amendment right by combining the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
 
ecofarm said:
Blah?

How can a right that pre-exists government be realized only via government? That's stupid. Think about it.
Click to expand...
The RKBA pre-existed the Constitution because it was present in State constitutions, not because there's some magical RKBA inherent in nature.

The RKBA pre-existed the States because it was in colonial charters, not because there's some magical RKBA inherent in nature.

The RKBA pre-existed colonial charters because it was present in English law, not because there's some magical RKBA inherent in nature.

Rights do not exist outside of the law.
 
Cordelier said:
Because the individual right that pre-exists government is a right to self-defense.... it can be justifiably claimed as a 9th Amendment right by combining the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
Click to expand...

The only possible realization of that right for the masses is the right to possess a firearm. Don't ninja dart me. I'm not gonna respect tough guy BS.
 
Wayne Jr said:
The RKBA pre-existed the Constitution because it was present in State constitutions, not because there's some magical RKBA inherent in nature.
Click to expand...

You have no concept of natural rights and thus any such discussion with you is worthless. Get educated.
 
ecofarm said:
Turtle is correct. Their problem is a lack of conception regarding natural rights.
Click to expand...

They think by claiming "natural rights do not exist" that allows them to pretend that the founders Didn't really intend the second to protect something that those two claim do not exist

that of course is a silly tactic. Natural rights are important because the people who WROTE the second amendment and RATIFIED the Second amendment believed such rights existed and INTENDED the SECOND to guarantee and solidify said right.
 
Wayne Jr said:
I do realize this.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you... you show in your next sentence that you don't realize it.

Wayne Jr said:
Feel free to articulate exactly how my source is a false authority.
Click to expand...
I already have done so. Did you read through my comment that you responded to here?

Wayne Jr said:
I have the option of simply using another source, in that event.
Click to expand...
And that returns you back to committing the false authority fallacy. You are putting the words of your holy source over the words of the US Constitution. Your holy source does not rule this country.

Wayne Jr said:
False. The Constitution does not say why the Constitution was written. The Constitution does not review SCOTUS decisions or US Title Code. The Constitution does not document the Founding Father's intentions.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. The Constitution is the ruling document of the USA. It is the proper authority. That's what a Republic is (rule by constitution).
 
TurtleDude said:
They think by claiming "natural rights do not exist" that allows them to pretend that the founders Didn't really intend the second to protect something that those two claim do not exist

that of course is a silly tactic. Natural rights are important because the people who WROTE the second amendment and RATIFIED the Second amendment believed such rights existed and INTENDED the SECOND to guarantee and solidify said right.
Click to expand...

Wow... You really are off in a world of your own, aren't you? How many different ways have I got to explain that there is a natural right to self defense?
 
Cordelier said:
But I agreed with you in the very same post you quoted.
Click to expand...

I didn't follow this part:

justifiably claimed as a 9th Amendment right by combining the 2nd and 4th Amendments.
Click to expand...

And as it looked, on perusal, as someone mentioning the 2nd going anywhere, I just wanted to be clear about my position.
 
Cordelier said:
Wow... You really are off in a world of your own, aren't you? How many different ways have I got to explain that there is a natural right to self defense?
Click to expand...

so you agree with us that the second amendment was always about the rights of individuals to possess firearms and that this was a negative restriction on the federal government, not to interfere with a right it never had any proper power to screw with in the first place?
 
TurtleDude said:
so you agree with us that the second amendment was always about the rights of individuals to possess firearms and that this was a negative restriction on the federal government, not to interfere with a right it never had any proper power to screw with in the first place?
Click to expand...

As it pertains to self-defense, absolutely.
 
Cordelier said:
As it pertains to self-defense, absolutely.
Click to expand...

We are making progress

so do you believe that the constitution intended to delegate any gun control power to the federal government, and if so-where.
 
TurtleDude said:
They think by claiming "natural rights do not exist" that allows them to pretend that the founders Didn't really intend the second to protect something that those two claim do not exist

that of course is a silly tactic. Natural rights are important because the people who WROTE the second amendment and RATIFIED the Second amendment believed such rights existed and INTENDED the SECOND to guarantee and solidify said right.
Click to expand...

I'm always astounded that it's apparently not as self evident as it once was. Have people gotten shallow?
 
ecofarm said:
I'm always astounded that it's apparently not as self evident as it once was. Have people gotten shallow?
Click to expand...

gun control has become a major weapon of the left in their attempt to punish those who vote against their candidates. The denigration of the second amendment is a major tactic in this assault, since their gun control schemes cannot survive until the Second Amendment is revised.
 
ecofarm said:
Feel free to clarify the 9th, 2nd, 4th thing. This isn't my field.
Click to expand...

The 9th Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights to make sure that future generations wouldn't interpret the rights enumerated within the first 8 amendments as being an exhaustive list - so it's the guarantor of natural rights.

The traditional avenue for the Courts to take in recognizing a 9th Amendment right is if the right claimed is a natural result of combining two or more of the enumerated rights. If you combine the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms with the 4th Amendment right to be secure in your home and in your person, you get the natural right to self defense.
 
Cordelier said:
The 9th Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights to make sure that future generations wouldn't interpret the rights enumerated within the first 8 amendments as being an exhaustive list - so it's the guarantor of natural rights.

The traditional avenue for the Courts to take in recognizing a 9th Amendment right is if the right claimed is a natural result of combining two or more of the enumerated rights. If you combine the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms with the 4th Amendment right to be secure in your home and in your person, you get the natural right to self defense.
Click to expand...

Privacy stems from self defense.
 
Cordelier said:
The 9th Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights to make sure that future generations wouldn't interpret the rights enumerated within the first 8 amendments as being an exhaustive list - so it's the guarantor of natural rights.

The traditional avenue for the Courts to take in recognizing a 9th Amendment right is if the right claimed is a natural result of combining two or more of the enumerated rights. If you combine the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms with the 4th Amendment right to be secure in your home and in your person, you get the natural right to self defense.
Click to expand...

Where did you come up with that idea?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom