Discussion Thread: Ludin vs Jet57 [W:26, 61]

[Serenity]

Moderator's Warning:

Just stop. This is a poll to vote on who you believe delivered the strongest debate performance. It is requested that people vote based on debate performance and not based on which side you personally agree with. This is also the place to discuss or debate their points brought up and continuing the discussion with the rest of the forum. This is not the basement and not the place to make personal comments relating to other posters. Cuti it out please or anyone continuing down this line will receive consequences.

 

[Redress]

Finally made my way through all that, and I would have to vote for a draw, or better yet, an incomplete. The topic was too broad, hey could not even agree what they where arguing about, and mostly what debating did happen, happened poorly. Ludin began the debate by arbitrarily defining what the words of the Second Amendment meant, while providing no evidence that was the meaning intended. Jet followed it up with by calling the Brady Bill that mandated background checks an assault weapons ban. Probably the worst argument though was this one, from Ludin:

He then goes back the GA law that only banned black people from owning firearms. The same law existed in many places including northern states. Of course these states also had laws
that banned black people from having dogs as well as they could use it as a weapon. So we can dismiss this as racial prejudice rather than gun control.

Yes, a law banning certain people from owning guns was not gun control....

I cannot vote, as the overly broad topic and the poor performance make me unwilling to pick a winner. I would suggest a do-over, with a more narrowly defined topic(some aspect of gun control perhaps?) and putting more time into the posts by each.

 

[ludin]

Finally made my way through all that, and I would have to vote for a draw, or better yet, an incomplete. The topic was too broad, hey could not even agree what they where arguing about, and mostly what debating did happen, happened poorly. Ludin began the debate by arbitrarily defining what the words of the Second Amendment meant, while providing no evidence that was the meaning intended. Jet followed it up with by calling the Brady Bill that mandated background checks an assault weapons ban. Probably the worst argument though was this one, from Ludin:



Yes, a law banning certain people from owning guns was not gun control....

I cannot vote, as the overly broad topic and the poor performance make me unwilling to pick a winner. I would suggest a do-over, with a more narrowly defined topic(some aspect of gun control perhaps?) and putting more time into the posts by each.

Infringe is posted the definitions and the quotes from the found fathers. They knew exactly what was meant.
Secondly if you look at the history of those laws they were racist in nature or had a military purpose.

As I posted in the argument.

 

[TurtleDude]

Jet said this: again, what we clearly see is that gun control in the US up through today, has been essential to public safety and backed and legalized throughout the country from our founding

the problem is, Jet failed to establish that gun control (which was too broadly described) was essential to public safety and constantly confused the Federal powers with state powers. Federal gun control was not possible until FDR perverted the commerce clause and was clearly not intended by the followers. Redress makes an excellent point that this debate was too broad.

 

[TurtleDude]

another issue; Jet constantly said that various bans don't violate the second amendment. Unfortunately he didn't really define stuff that was needed

1) are we talking violations that have yet to be adjudicated or are we talking violations that clearly violate the intent and meaning of the constitution

2) state or federal. It was only a couple years ago that the SC applied the second to the states and that is going to require years of analysis before the courts decide if the second amendment is only a limited restriction on the states because prior to the 14th amendment (absolutely) and until McDonald (partially) the second amendment had nothing to do with state actions. and thus we have a conflict between "state power" under the tenth vs federal supremacy. In my view, the second amendment cannot be completely imposed on the states as it should be on the federal government.


Jet seemed unable to understand that difference. he quoted Scalia's majority opinion in Heller but many read that as saying the "right is not unlimited" (which is poor language on the part of Scalia) as meaning that states have powers to infringe on some BEARING of firearms and those who have been adjudicated a felon etc -the states and the federal government (through the commerce clause fiction) have some powers to remove Keeping from some people. In reality, the second amendment is not about what people can do at the federal level but what the government cannot do, and that ban is consistent with the fact that the federal government was never given any power in this area and trying to pretend the second amendment is "limited" in the federal arena is pretty much a well know joke among people who understand this issue

 

[haymarket]

Have to say that Jet carried the debate with one good point after another starting with a solid definition and going from there. he wins.

 

[Renae]

I'm amused at how partisan the opinions are based on political affiliation.

The winner shouldn't be judged by how many partisans support them of their own cause, but how many partisan's of the opposing beliefs support them.

Otherwise this is a meaningless endeavor and merely just a "I got more of my people supporting my position then you did of yours."

 

[OpportunityCost]

I found Jets source material lacking, It was asserted by Kobie that Ludin was just quoting from a dictionary, that is not an accurate statement, In fact, it was Jet doing that very thing on five occasions. On two occasions he used reference opinion pieces from the Washington post and CBS news as fact material. There were other questionable sources also,”Think big” and ”Science alert” to name a few. At times he even resorted to quoting himself, I’m unclear If this was just a repeat tactic or he just ran out of material and thought to argue

Jet also asserted that the Laws that California has passed should in some fashion become the gold standard or there conclusions in some way supersede the 2nd amendment. Personally I put very little faith or weight on the opinions of law makers in California.

Especially in light of the fact that they are in the process of making both open and conceal carry illegal at the same time in separate court decisions.

 

[OpportunityCost]

going to the open of the thread we have this from Ludin:

Gun Control has been a topic of great discussion lately but there needs to be a closer look at the arguments being made with less political bias involved.
The 2nd amendment is a right given to the people it puts a limit on government of what the government can do. That is why it is part of the Bill of Rights.
These were written to ensure limited government over reach on the people and to protect the people from government.

This is the reply from Jet:

Though the opening statement has no thesis, the presumption can be made that ludin is against gun control. The arguments against gun control from his quarter usually go like this:
Oh! do let me help. There is no end to gun control and gun control will not discuss any surrender at any point. Nor will gun control discuss any valid reason for firearm ownership. There is only one logical conclusion so do not ask for proof of it. Show why it is not going to happen.

So Ludin made a thesis in bold and Jet57 replied with an argument not made by Ludin in italics. So, complaining of no thesis when one exists and a strawman from the start. Then he goes on to make colloquial arguments regarding the amount of people being armed in previous generations dilutes the right today along with the formation of police departments. He's making one false argument after another. Rights should not dilute because they were exercised more in the past! Nor should a more organized society hinder the ability of the populace to exercise those rights.

Even if Jet is debating better on structure, his arguments ring hollow and false. No matter how good your structure may be, you cannot win the debate with misleading and logically false arguments. Jet lost because he is engaging in various false assertions to support his argument.

 

[Celebrity]

ludin and Jet both gave reasonable arguments. The turning point for me was when the for side pointed out that the right to bear arms was not guaranteed by the Constitution before the Bill of Rights, and the against side decided to talk about the 2nd amendment as it related to spears and knives. Was the against side trying to justify gun ownership with some kind of link to our heritage in knife culture, in addition to how US citizens were armed over two centuries ago?

From a conservative standpoint, it seems like the culture is important, so the timelessness of the constitution outweighs what a justice says in court. Beyond that, I can't say I carry a musket just because my great, great grandaddy owned an M1 Garand. It's unlikely that he did, and just because one person carried a gun doesn't mean another person should carry a gun, regardless of the family line of work or in which direction technology advances on that line. The against side didn't address a lot of what those for gun control were saying, rather, it seems the against argument was formed around trying to discredit the debater on the for side. Even when the for side responded to points made by the against side, it seemed like the majority of the time, the against side was attempting to gain ground by exploiting an imagined failure to address the 2nd amendment. The for side addressed the 2nd amendment repeatedly, but did not respond in the way those against gun control wanted a response, or perhaps didn't use the words the against side wanted to be used.

 

[ludin]

ludin and Jet both gave reasonable arguments. The turning point for me was when the for side pointed out that the right to bear arms was not guaranteed by the Constitution before the Bill of Rights, and the against side decided to talk about the 2nd amendment as it related to spears and knives. Was the against side trying to justify gun ownership with some kind of link to our heritage in knife culture, in addition to how US citizens were armed over two centuries ago?

From a conservative standpoint, it seems like the culture is important, so the timelessness of the constitution outweighs what a justice says in court. Beyond that, I can't say I carry a musket just because my great, great grandaddy owned an M1 Garand. It's unlikely that he did, and just because one person carried a gun doesn't mean another person should carry a gun, regardless of the family line of work or in which direction technology advances on that line. The against side didn't address a lot of what those for gun control were saying, rather, it seems the against argument was formed around trying to discredit the debater on the for side. Even when the for side responded to points made by the against side, it seemed like the majority of the time, the against side was attempting to gain ground by exploiting an imagined failure to address the 2nd amendment. The for side addressed the 2nd amendment repeatedly, but did not respond in the way those against gun control wanted a response, or perhaps didn't use the words the against side wanted to be used.

he never did address the 2nd amendment in what he said. The constitution is the law of the land.
I even posted that the founding father mentioned already prevailing rights that were rights before the constitution.

when the other debator is just making up his own arguments on things I never said it should be obvious that he can't
actually address the argument presented.

no he never did address the second amendment. he simply copied and pasted and said I am right because of this.
circular logic.

he never addressed the fact that the 2nd amendment says the rights of the people shall not be infringed.

 

[MickeyW]

I found Jets source material lacking, It was asserted by Kobie that Ludin was just quoting from a dictionary, that is not an accurate statement, In fact, it was Jet doing that very thing on five occasions. On two occasions he used reference opinion pieces from the Washington post and CBS news as fact material. There were other questionable sources also,”Think big” and ”Science alert” to name a few. At times he even resorted to quoting himself, I’m unclear If this was just a repeat tactic or he just ran out of material and thought to argue

Jet also asserted that the Laws that California has passed should in some fashion become the gold standard or there conclusions in some way supersede the 2nd amendment. Personally I put very little faith or weight on the opinions of law makers in California.

As do I. The California lawmakers, for the most part, are a bunch of liberal ninnies! No surprise, that jet would give them the nod.

 

[Master PO]

Jet's argument failed from the very start when he put forth that the 2nd amendment is a power of the government to regulate.

jet57's argument of the 2nd amendment and using the word "regulated" as a government control is....... incorrect.

if one would read the founders,"regulated" means....an organized group of men and not a rabble, added to the FACT that the 2nd amendment is a restriction on federal power, it not a grant of any power what so ever to the federal government, so jet57s argument is dead from the beginning.

 

[Master PO]

Have to say that Jet carried the debate with one good point after another starting with a solid definition and going from there. he wins.

:lamo not by saying the 2nd allows regulation!

 

[Celebrity]

Jet's argument failed from the very start when he put forth that the 2nd amendment is a power of the government to regulate.

jet57's argument of the 2nd amendment and using the word "regulated" as a government control is....... incorrect.

if one would read the founders,"regulated" means....an organized group of men and not a rabble, added to the FACT that the 2nd amendment is a restriction on federal power, it not a grant of any power what so ever to the federal government, so jet57s argument is dead from the beginning.

No, it's not a federal power, it's a concession on the part of the people as arranged by the people who elected the representatives that wrote the amendment. "Well regulated" can be interpreted as a caveat, which is the issue. It's not to say that the Second Amendment mandates that the government must regulate the militia, or any other arms-bearing group. The Second Amendment suggests that the government may regulate, if necessary, gun ownership as exhibited in the militia and other groups. That is why Jet mentioned that Justice Scalia said that it was not an unlimited right in Heller.

Making your text big and bold doesn't really change the fact that it isn't factual - just your opinion. When you said that Jet "put forth that the second amendment is a power of the government to regulate," did you mean the citation of Article 1, Sec 8, in post #5? Maybe you meant the citation of the 10th Amendment, as far as states are concerned, in post #10? I don't know.

 

[haymarket]

:lamo not by saying the 2nd allows regulation!

The Constitution does and the specific Amendment does NOT prohibit it as long as the right can be exercised.

 

[Master PO]

No, it's not a federal power, it's a concession on the part of the people as arranged by the people who elected the representatives that wrote the amendment. "Well regulated" can be interpreted as a caveat, which is the issue. It's not to say that the Second Amendment mandates that the government must regulate the militia, or any other arms-bearing group. The Second Amendment suggests that the government may regulate, if necessary, gun ownership as exhibited in the militia and other groups. That is why Jet mentioned that Justice Scalia said that it was not an unlimited right in Heller.

Making your text big and bold doesn't really change the fact that it isn't factual - just your opinion. When you said that Jet "put forth that the second amendment is a power of the government to regulate," did you mean the citation of Article 1, Sec 8, in post #5? Maybe you meant the citation of the 10th Amendment, as far as states are concerned, in post #10? I don't know.

WRONG!

HERE IS THE PROOF!

December 15, 1791
Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.


THE 2ND IS A RESTRICTION OF FEDERAL power to make no law!.......AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG!


THE FOUNDERS ON THE "REGULATED" PART OF THE 2ND


House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

17, 20 Aug. 1789Annals 1:749--52, 766--67
[17 Aug.]

The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr. Gerry.--This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.


William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 125--26 1829 (2d ed.)

In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.


UNLESS YOU HAVE FACTS, PLEASE STOP THE CRAP!

 

[Master PO]

the constitution does and the specific amendment does not prohibit it as long as the right can be exercised.

the 2nd is a restriction on federal power...period!

It grants the federal government nothing..IT DENIES THEM

Regulation of commerce per article 1 section 8 is interstate commerce, and does not grant the federal government police powers inside of states, per what jet57 has tried to claim.

 

[haymarket]

the 2nd is a restriction on federal power...period!

It grants the federal government nothing..IT DENIES THEM

Regulation of commerce per article 1 section 8 is interstate commerce, and does not grant the federal government police powers inside of states, per what jet57 has tried to claim.

It only denies the federal gov enrollment the ability to prevent the right from being exercised.

 

[Master PO]

It only denies the federal gov enrollment the ability to prevent the right from being exercised.

it denies them from making any law.


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
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.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

in the 19th century the federal government has no police powers over the people per the USSC of 1873, which jet57 says powers of that period do, that claim is wrong!

 

[haymarket]

the 2nd is a restriction on federal power...period!

It grants the federal government nothing..IT DENIES THEM

Regulation of commerce per article 1 section 8 is interstate commerce, and does not grant the federal government police powers inside of states, per what jet57 has tried to claim.

Jet made his point rather well.

 

[haymarket]

it denies them from making any law.

It does not say that - you just made it up.

Jet dealt with what the Constitution says.

 

[Master PO]

Jet made his point rather well.

dope, you just WISH.

 

[Master PO]

It does not say that - you just made it up.

Jet dealt with what the Constitution says.

wrong again!

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

that covers speech, bearing arms, speedy trial, association, petition the government, property, among many others

the federal government has no powers concerning the people personal lives, federalist 45, and the USSC of 1873, which jet has claimed powers of the 19th century.

its easy showing you and he wrong

 

[Celebrity]

WRONG!

HERE IS THE PROOF!

Ironic that you are asking me to stop the crap unless I have facts, yet your arguments are grasping, reaching, at best. In the order of the first set of "facts," it is your interpretation based on how the states wished to limit federal power, that the federal government has no power or perhaps that the federal government should be limited insofar as how the right to bear arms should be regulated. Yes, there is a restriction on federal power to give the states a greater share of the power of the Government and yes, there is a caveat within that restriction. So it might be your opinion that the restriction is limitless, but it's not, just like the government's regulation is not limitless. You appear to be exhibiting some form of arms-bearing zeal which, while admirable, might be cause for your disgrace if it is over done.

The article by William Rawle is useful information that I didn't previously have, but it's only useful for historical purposes. A document from 1829 might be seen as jurisprudence, if it were a court case or perhaps the comment of a judge on a particular case, but this is a compilation of the opinions held by a 19th century attorney of the entire US Constitution. Was he a constitutional scholar? Perhaps. Does his opinion give us an idea of the depth and breadth of the understanding of the Constitution by a legal scholar of that time? Yes. This is an important primary source, but it does not govern how we legislate gun control today.

Ironically, even if one does agree with Mr. Rawle, that does not mean that one should conclude that the militia is self regulated, nor does it stand as evidence to prove that the government, whether it be state or federal, may or may not regulate citizens' lawful right to bear arms.

The fact is, today we have a wider variety of arms available to citizens, which are more readily available and more widely circulated by a more heavily entrenched population of gun owners. The Second Amendment did not give you the right to own an anti-tank rifle for the militia in 1789, and it is questionable whether or not it did in the 40's when the Swedish began producing them. I like to think that it does not now. Gun ownership is largely a function of how much at war society is, and the culture of war, and how closely a country is in contact with other countries who are at war, such as the allies in WW2. In the late 18th century, the US was emerging from a war, and the only people who could abstain from owning a gun were the people who did so for religious reasons. So why is it that we should conclude that anyone can own any gun now, based on that information from two centuries ago? It's a stretch.

The for side mentioned in post #30 that, as gun culture became more prevalent and our nation's leaders became more aware of the situation, they began to call for gun control measures as early as the late 19th century.

The against side argued in post #14, "having requirements in order to buy a gun is not [...] gun control." But this is in fact part of the larger issue. You can attempt to call it "disarming the populace" all you want, that's not what this is about. This is not about taking away guns from people who presently own guns, and no part of the "people have historically owned guns" proves that people should own guns, or that they may now own guns.