• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,313
Reaction score
4,928
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Here is the text of the 2nd 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.

Going strictly by what is written, restrictions on the purchase of firearms seem to be constitutional. Agree or disagree?

Note that I'm not asking whether they are a good idea or not, that's a separate debate. I'm only asking whether they are constitutional.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,134
Reaction score
21,531
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Going by what is written, it says nothing about obtaining arms, just keeping and bearing them, so to make it harder to obtain arms, strictly by what is written, is not against the constitution.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Yes, in my opinion there can be restrictions.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,387
Reaction score
24,522
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
If you want to go by a strict reading, it reads "arms" not guns. Technically if a you have a big stick, you are armed.

This is why strict readings can be somewhat useless in constitutional interpretation.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
If you want to go by a strict reading, it reads "arms" not guns. Technically if a you have a big stick, you are armed.

This is why strict readings can be somewhat useless in constitutional interpretation.

It could also mean weapons grade plutonium. Which, I think we can all agree on, shouldn't be made publicly available.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Small arms are man portable firearms, revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, machine guns etc.

Except for taxing sales, no restrictions should stop a legal US citizen of sound mind from buying one of these weapons.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Except for taxing sales, no restrictions should stop a legal US citizen of sound mind from buying one of these weapons.

Determining if somebody is a legal US citizen and determining if somebody is of sound mind are two huge restrictions. What else do you want, Nancy Pelosi, a five day waiting period?
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Determining if somebody is a legal US citizen and determining if somebody is of sound mind are two huge restrictions. What else do you want, Nancy Pelosi, a five day waiting period?

ID and a criminal background search etc are not restrictions and are not restricting your rights to own a weapon. They are just checks to make certain you are a responsible individual.

Get a clue, we live in a society with many individuals so some safety checks (not restrictions) are valid and completely constitutional.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,313
Reaction score
4,928
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Small arms are man portable firearms, revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, machine guns etc.

Except for taxing sales, no restrictions should stop a legal US citizen of sound mind from buying one of these weapons.

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?
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'll sum up at the end of the post, but I prefer to let my "crew" sing the opening verse....


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)

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)

I have pages and pages of Founder comments on the 2A.

To sum up:
All American citizens are members of the "unorganized militia".
The Founders, those who wrote the Constitution, clearly intended the militia, that is the people, to be as well armed as the "Standing army".
Therefore it is not Constitutional to restrict the citizenry from owning/possessing/carrying anything that a US military Infantryman might carry as a personal weapon.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
ID and a criminal background search etc are not restrictions and are not restricting your rights to own a weapon. They are just checks to make certain you are a responsible individual.

Get a clue, we live in a society with many individuals so some safety checks (not restrictions) are valid and completely constitutional.

You're entitled to your opinion, you don't have to get all defensive about it. I'm just surprised about what a far-leftie you are, that's all.

But to return to the original topic, the second amendment doesn't protect the rights of "legal US citizens of sound mind to keep and bear arms" from being infringed. I believe the exact word is the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We apply to first amendment to foreigners, why not the second? We apply the first amendment to the mentally unsound, why not the second?

Liberals like you might want to re-write the constitution, and that's your prerogative as a socialist to do so. But those of us who care about what the original intent of the Framers was have very different views...
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?

It is not constitutional to restrict the weapons I mentiond from purchase etc to a US citizen of sound mind.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It is not constitutional to restrict the weapons I mentiond from purchase etc to a US citizen of sound mind.

Nor is there a ristriction on unsound minds either, you're basically putting words in the founders mouths.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,313
Reaction score
4,928
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It is not constitutional to restrict the weapons I mentiond from purchase etc to a US citizen of sound mind.

How do you support that, since the constitution only mentions that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says absolutely nothing about the right to purchase or sell arms.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're entitled to your opinion, you don't have to get all defensive about it. I'm just surprised about what a far-leftie you are, that's all.

Far leftie? :lol:

But to return to the original topic, the second amendment doesn't protect the rights of "legal US citizens of sound mind to keep and bear arms" from being infringed. I believe the exact word is the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We apply to first amendment to foreigners, why not the second? We apply the first amendment to the mentally unsound, why not the second?

Because they are not the militia. :roll:

Unless you feel Iranian citizens are part of the US militia. :lol:

Liberals like you might want to re-write the constitution, and that's your prerogative as a socialist to do so. But those of us who care about what the original intent of the Framers was have very different views...

No. Conservatives like me want to follow the constitution and have it interpreted correctly.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Because they are not the militia. :roll:

Unless you feel Iranian citizens are part of the US militia. :lol:

Iranian citizens who are in US jurisdiction have the same right to free speech, right to practice religion and right to keep and bear arms that US citizens do. Rights do not apply only to US citizens, when the founders said "people" they meant all people not just citizens. Please let me know if I can clear up any more misconceptions you have.

No. Conservatives like me want to follow the constitution and have it interpreted correctly.

LOL So then stop reading words in the Constitution that aren't there. Or else point to me where in the text of the second amendment does it say "sound mind" or "US citizen?" If you can't, you are wrong, leftie.
 
Last edited:

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How do you support that, since the constitution only mentions that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says absolutely nothing about the right to purchase or sell arms.

The Feds have the right to regulate sales between the states. Why would not local governments have the same rights under the constitution? Making certain someone is a citizen and or a background check is not restricting a right, as a convicted felons loses those rights upon conviction. Anyone else would have no problem with either. Taxes are a given.
 
Last edited:

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How do you support that, since the constitution only mentions that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says absolutely nothing about the right to purchase or sell arms.


You're smarter than that. How are you going to possess arms if you can't buy them.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iranian citizens who are in US jurisdiction have the same right to free speech, right to practice religion and right to keep and bear arms that US citizens do. Rights do not apply only to US citizens. Please let me know if I can clear up any more misconceptions you have.

As soon as an Iranian national is considered part of the militia, you let me know.

LOL So then stop reading words in the Constitution that aren't there. Or else point to me where in the text of the second amendment does it say "sound mind" or "US citizen?" If you can't, you are wrong, leftie.

So you are saying "militia" is not there? :lol:
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Iranian citizens who are in US jurisdiction have the same right to free speech, right to practice religion and right to keep and bear arms that US citizens do. Rights do not apply only to US citizens, when the founders said "people" they meant people. Please let me know if I can clear up any more misconceptions you have.



LOL So then stop reading words in the Constitution that aren't there. Or else point to me where in the text of the second amendment does it say "sound mind" or "US citizen?" If you can't, you are wrong, leftie.


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)

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


Nuff said...
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,313
Reaction score
4,928
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You're smarter than that. How are you going to possess arms if you can't buy them.

Beats me. The constitution doesn't seem to cover that. I guess you have to make them yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I get the point you're making, I just want to play devil's advocate.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,313
Reaction score
4,928
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
The Feds have the right to regulate sales between the states. Why would not local governments have the same rights under the constitution? Making certain someone is a citizen and or a background check is not restricting a right, as a convicted felons loses those rights upon conviction. Anyone else would have no problem with either. Taxes are a given.

Fair enough. I'm in the same vein as you mostly. I feel that some gun restrictions are okay and others aren't.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As soon as an Iranian national is considered part of the militia, you let me know.

Your argument (or implied argument rather, since you're merely stating a conclusion with no support) is faulty. The second amendment doesn't apply to only members of the militia. So does the second amendment only apply to people who can be in the milita? Well, no.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,112
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't like to repeat myself, but apparently I need to:

I'll sum up at the end of the post, but I prefer to let my "crew" sing the opening verse....


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)

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)

I have pages and pages of Founder comments on the 2A.

To sum up:
All American citizens are members of the "unorganized militia".
The Founders, those who wrote the Constitution, clearly intended the militia, that is the people, to be as well armed as the "Standing army".
Therefore it is not Constitutional to restrict the citizenry from owning/possessing/carrying anything that a US military Infantryman might carry as a personal weapon.
 
Top Bottom