• 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!

How The Second Amendment Was Reinterpreted To Protect Individual Rights....Less Than 50 Years Ago

CLAX1911 said:
Umm. I think you're moving me up with some other poster. I never mentioned anything about Democrats the NRA and the late 70s.
Click to expand...
I was trying to help you out...because you can't make a real argument.
 
RIP U.S. Democracy said:
As I've stated repeatedly, nobody was talking about the Second Amendment being an unequivocal right to own guns until the late 1970s. So for the first 200 years of this country's history, no Republicans (or Democrats) were talking this stupid shit.

This is nothing but propaganda cooked-up by the NRA less than 50 years ago and it has brainwashed unsophisticated Republican goobers ever since, as this article explains. --





And here is why all of the Republican Constitution "Originalist scholars" are so full of shit as well. --




Click to expand...
Your source is so full of crap they need a movement.

The second amendment is absolutely clear to anyone that can read english at middle school level. The right to to keep and bear arms shall Not be infringed. It didnt say firearms or sticks or anything else. It said arms. Which is litterally anything you can use. Just to put the cherry on top is the clause that allows congress to issues letters of marque and reprisal, which where issued to private citizens and or their warships. Not only did private citzens own cannons they could own as many as they could afford to stuff on their warships which were crewed by other fellow citzens, and could quite easily torch a harbor city or two if they so desired. Last I checked congress can still issue letters of marque and the second amendment hasnt been repealed. Its not my problem that when people wear black robes and call themselves judge, they become illiterate boobs.
 
Bear5131 said:
I am almost never wrong, the gun control laws was racist and to destroy the black panthers. Reagan was a Democrat back then

( didn't I already school you on this already)
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Governor_of_California_(1967–1975)

Early political career​

" Nancy and Ronald Reagan aboard a boat in California, 1964
Reagan began as a Hollywood Democrat, and Franklin D. Roosevelt was "a true hero" to him.[81] He moved to the right-wing in the 1950s, became a Republican in 1962, and emerged as a leading conservative spokesman in the Goldwater campaign of 1964.[82]
....
California Republicans were impressed with Reagan's political views and charisma after his "Time for Choosing" speech,[101] and in late 1965 he announced his campaign for governor in the 1966 election.[102][103] He defeated former San Francisco mayor George Christopher in the Republican primary. In Reagan's campaign, he emphasized two main themes: "to send the welfare bums back to work", and, in reference to burgeoning anti-war and anti-establishment student protests at the University of California, Berkeley, "to clean up the mess at Berkeley".[104] In 1966, Reagan accomplished what both U.S. senator William Knowland in 1958 and former vice president Richard Nixon in 1962 failed to do: he was elected, defeating Pat Brown, the Democratic two-term governor. Reagan was sworn in on January 2, 1967.."
 
RIP U.S. Democracy said:
A reading of history explains why, as I explained in Post #1. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to be a sacred individual right, as the NRA and Republicans constantly go on and on about. It was meant to allow citizens to form militias -- "bear arms" -- during times of war. That's all.

And that's how the 2nd Amendment was treated for the first 200 years of this country's history.
Click to expand...
I and most Americans are aware of the current state of politics. While the Republicans shoot off canned arguments so do Democrats. Point being that this is a country wide problem not a left/right bickering back and forth role playing crap session.

Personally I think that the government cannot fix gun violence. They could make inroads but the responsibility lies on all Americans. I believe the key is education, community involvement etc. not pointing fingers at a rival political party and blaming them. Afterall both parties sport a lot of supporters that own firearms.
 
Bullseye said:
Then do so.
Click to expand...
In the 13 swing states that turned the 2020 presidential election into a nail biter, suburban and urban counties with the highest share of college educated White people supported Biden by 4.4 more points than they did Hillary Clinton in 2016, according to a Bloomberg analysis of the latest available vote counts from the Associated Press. Those gains were especially pronounced in battleground states, including longtime Republican strongholds Arizona and Georgia, that Biden appears to have reclaimed for the Democratic Party.

 
RIP U.S. Democracy said:
As I've stated repeatedly, nobody was talking about the Second Amendment being an unequivocal right to own guns until the late 1970s. So for the first 200 years of this country's history, no Republicans (or Democrats) were talking this stupid shit.

This is nothing but propaganda cooked-up by the NRA less than 50 years ago and it has brainwashed unsophisticated Republican goobers ever since, as this article explains. --





And here is why all of the Republican Constitution "Originalist scholars" are so full of shit as well. --




Click to expand...
The 2nd amendment has 2 parts. A well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state and the second part, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In simple terms as the framers intended, the people should have a well-regulated military to protect them and that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Keep in mind, the framers had this abhorrence to standing armies. They didn’t trust them. But they trusted the people. Something our government doesn’t today.
 
RIP U.S. Democracy said:
In other words, you have no answer for why the NRA started their propaganda against the Democrats in the late 1970s and why they decided to endorse Reagan in 1980, the first Presidential candidate they ever endorsed.
Click to expand...
While it's true that no major gun legislation was passed during the 70s, there was a new wave of gun control advocacy groups formed in the 70s, such as the Committee for Handgun Control, formed in 1973 in Illinois and National Council to Control Handguns in 1974, which later became Handgun Control Inc, and still later the Brady Campaign. The NRA started playing attention to the political area in response to this, combined with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Again, for the umpteenth time, the NRA wasn't involved in politics prior to the 70s because there was no need.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I and most Americans are aware of the current state of politics. While the Republicans shoot off canned arguments so do Democrats. Point being that this is a country wide problem not a left/right bickering back and forth role playing crap session.

Personally I think that the government cannot fix gun violence. They could make inroads but the responsibility lies on all Americans. I believe the key is education, community involvement etc. not pointing fingers at a rival political party and blaming them. Afterall both parties sport a lot of supporters that own firearms.
Click to expand...

This "both sider" crap doesn't fly. If there were 10 more Democrats in the Senate, then the AR-15 would be banned. As it should be. It's that simple.
 
Perotista said:
The 2nd amendment has 2 parts. A well-regulated militia being necessary to a free state and the second part, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In simple terms as the framers intended, the people should have a well-regulated military to protect them and that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Keep in mind, the framers had this abhorrence to standing armies. They didn’t trust them. But they trusted the people. Something our government doesn’t today.
Click to expand...

The point is that this NRA hysteria about the owning of guns being an individual sacred right did not start until less than 50 years ago.

And no Republican can point to ANY gun control measures enacted by the Democrats in the 1970s to turn the NRA so vehemently against them. Gun control was a totally non-partisan issue prior to the late 1970s.
 
natman said:
While it's true that no major gun legislation was passed during the 70s, there was a new wave of gun control advocacy groups formed in the 70s, such as the Committee for Handgun Control, formed in 1973 in Illinois and National Council to Control Handguns in 1974, which later became Handgun Control Inc, and still later the Brady Campaign. The NRA started playing attention to the political area in response to this, combined with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Again, for the umpteenth time, the NRA wasn't involved in politics prior to the 70s because there was no need.
Click to expand...

That doesn't fly. Republicans also favored hand gun bans in the early 1970s, including Nixon.

This doesn't explain why the NRA joined forces with the Republican Party, starting with their presidential endorsement of Reagan in 1980.
 
RIP U.S. Democracy said:
This "both sider" crap doesn't fly. If there were 10 more Democrats in the Senate, then the AR-15 would be banned. As it should be. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
The "both sider" argument that you just threw at me is just another canned argument. Just because I asserted that both parties spout a bunch of crap doesn't mean I'm blaming both sides for anything, it means that politicians spout crap.

What I was doing (that you missed based on your own partisan crap) was brushing to the side your us vs them rhetoric, to point out that this is not a left vs right fight.

The push to ban Ar-15's will not stop school shootings. Most crimes involving firearms are handguns. By far more people die from handguns than long rifles. And that includes mass shootings.

www.statista.com

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2023 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.
www.statista.com www.statista.com

To be clear I am not protecting the AR-15 so do not bother with making an argument against them. My point is that activists and politician's are going after the wrong weapon type if their goal is to save more lives. They do so because they are parroting a talking point and nothing else. That talking point is that "military grade weapons should not be in civilian hands". It isnt an argument against what they perceive to be the cause of mass shootings, it is just anti-gun rhetoric.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The "both sider" argument that you just threw at me is just another canned argument. Just because I asserted that both parties spout a bunch of crap doesn't mean I'm blaming both sides for anything, it means that politicians spout crap.

What I was doing (that you missed based on your own partisan crap) was brushing to the side your us vs them rhetoric, to point out that this is not a left vs right fight.

The push to ban Ar-15's will not stop school shootings. Most crimes involving firearms are handguns. By far more people die from handguns than long rifles. And that includes mass shootings.

www.statista.com

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2023 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.
www.statista.com www.statista.com

To be clear I am not protecting the AR-15 so do not bother with making an argument against them. My point is that activists and politician's are going after the wrong weapon type if their goal is to save more lives. They do so because they are parroting a talking point and nothing else. That talking point is that "military grade weapons should not be in civilian hands". It isnt an argument against what they perceive to be the cause of mass shootings, it is just anti-gun rhetoric.
Click to expand...
When it comes to banning AR-15s, there are no Democrats "spouting crap". They speak the truth. Therefore, it's dumb of you to even mention that in this case.
 
RIP U.S. Democracy said:
When it comes to banning AR-15s, there are no Democrats "spouting crap". They speak the truth. Therefore, it's dumb of you to even mention that in this case.
Click to expand...
Politicians spout crap; all of them do. You sound like a Tramper trying to tell me that Trump doesn't lie.

I cannot help to notice that two things were important to you: banning specifically AR-15's and believing that the Democrat party is infallible. Not anything to do with saving lives or acknowledging that handguns are for more dangerous to society than rifles. Nope you just parroted the talking points of a political party. Meanwhile the stupidness of singling out AR-15's not based on facts will only lead to failure to curb gun violence again. That's what happens when such things are used as political weapons among the dictators we call the political parties.

Gun bans are the lazy way to curb violence. The key to stopping the violence starts at the community level and works its way up. We should be looking at communities that do not have so much violence and understand what is working there. Banning guns is the same tactic that the zealot's are using on abortion. If they want to save babies and stop abortion, they need to figure how to do that instead of just banning.

Prohibition failed because the proponent's never addressed the problems that they were all anal about. They thought that banning alcohol would fix everything. It did not make a difference.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Politicians spout crap; all of them do. You sound like a Tramper trying to tell me that Trump doesn't lie.
Click to expand...
No. I'm pointing out that you post a bunch of irrelevant crap that has nothing to do with this AR-15 discussion.

But that's how it usually is with "Independents". They don't know very much, so they just go straight to frivolous, vapid "both sider" crap posts.

FreedomFromAll said:
I cannot help to notice that two things were important to you: banning specifically AR-15's and believing that the Democrat party is infallible.
Click to expand...
Shit. You don't read many of my posts. The Democrats snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory virtually every election. And, yeah, the AR-15 should be ****ing banned. Did I stutter?

FreedomFromAll said:
Not anything to do with saving lives or acknowledging that handguns are for more dangerous to society than rifles. Nope you just parroted the talking points of a political party. Meanwhile the stupidness of singling out AR-15's not based on facts will only lead to failure to curb gun violence again. That's what happens when such things are used as political weapons among the dictators we call the political parties.
Click to expand...
The assault weapons ban from 1994 - 2004 saved lives. It's that simple. You're the one who is misinformed.

FreedomFromAll said:
Gun bans are the lazy way to curb violence. The key to stopping the violence starts at the community level and works its way up. We should be looking at communities that do not have so much violence and understand what is working there. Banning guns is the same tactic that the zealot's are using on abortion. If they want to save babies and stop abortion, they need to figure how to do that instead of just banning.
Click to expand...
"Lazy way"...LOL. Gun bans sure seem to be very effective in other countries that don't have our insane gun laws.

FreedomFromAll said:
Prohibition failed because the proponent's never addressed the problems that they were all anal about. They thought that banning alcohol would fix everything. It did not make a difference.
Click to expand...
Stupid analogy. Not trying to ban all guns, like we tried to ban all alcohol. Just the most dangerous guns.
 
Crovax said:
No individual rights existed until 1925, what's your point?
Click to expand...
Individual rights existed prior to 1925 - which I presume is in reference to Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). However Gitlow was the first time the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment (which was ratified in 1867) and applied an individual right (free speech in this particular case) to the States. Prior to 1925 the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government, and did not restrict the States. However, individual rights were recognized by the founding fathers from the very beginning with the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Bill of Rights extended a federal prohibition against infringing certain "unalienable Rights," and when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified those prohibitions should have also extended to the States. The Supreme Court gave themselves the authority to slowly incorporate each separate individual right whenever it suits them. As a result absolutely nothing happened until 1925. Since 1925 the Supreme Court has gradually incorporated most of the Bill of Rights, but not all, and applied them to the States. The last one was the Eighth Amendment, which the Supreme Court finally got around to incorporating and applying to the States in 2020, 153 years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
 
RIP U.S. Democracy said:
No. I'm pointing out that you post a bunch of irrelevant crap that has nothing to do with this AR-15 discussion.

But that's how it usually is with "Independents". They don't know very much, so they just go straight to frivolous, vapid "both sider" crap posts.


Shit. You don't read many of my posts. The Democrats snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory virtually every election. And, yeah, the AR-15 should be ****ing banned. Did I stutter?


The assault weapons ban from 1994 - 2004 saved lives. It's that simple. You're the one who is misinformed.


"Lazy way"...LOL. Gun bans sure seem to be very effective in other countries that don't have our insane gun laws.


Stupid analogy. Not trying to ban all guns, like we tried to ban all alcohol. Just the most dangerous guns.
Click to expand...

How did an assault weapon ban that didn't ban assault weapons, save lives? Pretty hard to credit that to a law that slightly changed the appearance of some guns.
 
RF667799 said:
How did an assault weapon ban that didn't ban assault weapons, save lives? Pretty hard to credit that to a law that slightly changed the appearance of some guns.
Click to expand...

Do your own research and find out.

Pro tip -- stay off the racist right wing websites.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I didn't take you long to reduce to personal nonsense
Click to expand...

Wasn't that your goal all along? It sure as hell wasn't to have an intelligent discussion about anything. You simply don't know how.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom