• 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!

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide


Or they used the phrase "to keep and bear arms" to make a distinction between having and owning and include both in the Amendment. That way the government would not just issue them at their whim and take them at their whim.

It is pointless to have arms if you cannot use them.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but irrelevant unless you use interpretation and implication in construing the 2nd Amendment. A strict comstructionist could NOT see it this way.


As I have been saying, where, what, how, and why can be regulated since the firing is not a Constitutional right. There are many ways to skin a cat. This is just one.

And again, I didn't say you had to be anyone's fool, you can be an independent fool if you wish.
Click to expand...

Except the argument is not foolish. I haven't seen anything that demonstrates it is inaccurate. In fact, most of you are supporting my argument, yet dismissing it at the same time. Weird.
 

All that is, is a manual about how to use and fire a weapon. No more part of law than a manual in how to operate a microwave.
 

This is an interesting position... but no matter HOW you slice it, militias as an arm of the millitary, or as a part of the people... it's the PEOPLE that have the right to bear arms, and it's a right that shall not be infringed. Look, if the millitary / government gets out of control, there's a part of the constitution that describes how it's the PEOPLE's responsibility to remove the out of control people in pwer from their positions of power. You can't do that as people if you are disarmed.

However, with the level of technology available to the US, even armed, it would now depend on millitary resources to not get wiped out.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
All that is, is a manual about how to use and fire a weapon. No more part of law than a manual in how to operate a microwave.
Click to expand...

It's actually a part of the law. Here's Article VII of the Milita Act of 1792.

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline. I also refer you to Article I Section VIII Clause XVI in the delegation of power to prescribe the exact standards of discipline for the militia.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States is the method of discipline as prescribed under Article I Section VIII Clause XVI and the Second Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
It would help if you would clarify where it is you feel bumpfire mechanisms are and are not currently legal.
Click to expand...

I believe I did when I talked about jurisdictions of the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court. Since such mechanisms are listed by the BATFE as being illegal for failing to secure the tax stamp for full auto weapons depends upon the jurisdiction of the person. Until a case is heard by the Supreme Court, it only applies to one part of the country.
 

References please.
 
Chuz Life said:
Oh god,.. I'm entering a pissing match with CC.

(someone stop him,... cries the voice in my head)
Click to expand...

Come on... it's been a while. This should be a fun one. :2razz:


Great sentence. Wish I had written it. Here are a couple of answers:

1) If there was no right to own and possess guns, a tyrannical government could oppress the people, unfettered. The possession offers the potential of usage... kinda like the concept of deterrence used in The Cold War. Lots of pro-2nd Amendment folks have said, that without the 2nd, the 1st Amendment can not be held. I would submit that if the government violated the 1st Amendment by oppressing speech, the government has illegally violated it's contract with the people, nullifying said contract, thereby allowing folks who "keep and bear arms" to use them. Now, this does not actually adhere to or violate the 2nd Amendment, but just goes beyond it's scope, allowable, as the contract is void. So, once the government becomes tyrannical and violates the Bill of Rights, voiding the contract, the people no longer have to adhere to the rules of said contract.

2) The founders may also have only indicated only a right "to keep and bear arms" in order to allow for regulation of usage. Of course, this is just a supposition, and my first answer is far more logical.

3) Since some of the founders, Hamilton especially, saw the Constitution as not something to encompass EVERYTHING, as this is impossible, it may have been left somewhat vague in this regards to allow for interpretation. This, of course is more of a developmentalist position, and since I am arguing from a strict originalist position, I only present this as a possibility. Again, it is my first answer that accurately responds to your question.
 

There is a historical context which you are completely either oblivious to or that you are aware of an are simply omitting.

That context (fact) is this; "The right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution itself."

The 2nd Amendment is an expansion of the existing right that the people had when they "took up arms and used them" against the king.

Our right to keep, bear and use arms does not come from the Constitution in the form of some lame assed 'contract.'

The Bill of rights is a limitation on the powers and authority of the government not of the people..
 

What happened before the Constitution is not relevant unless it is included... unless you are using implication and interpretation. I am not.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
What happened before the Constitution is not relevant unless it is included... unless you are using implication and interpretation. I am not.
Click to expand...

As each and every one of us has an equal right to read and interpret the Constitution, speak our minds, assemble and to petition the government for redress,... I believe you are incorrect in your assumption.

The setting (context) in which the Constitution was written is completely relevant when trying to grasp the meaning of the words written.

The Framers tried to first sell the people on the Constitution as it was first drafted and minus the "Bill of Rights."

The message the framers received was clear.

"Either you enumerate our rights and insure their protections,... or we are going to hang your sorry arses!"

(my paraphrase)
 

So, you are saying that implication and interpretation beyond what is actually written is appicable in assessing what the Constitution allows and does not. Hmmm... interesting concept.


Well, I completely reject the concept of the existence of natural rights, but that's for another thread/argument. The point you seem to be making... as are others, is that historical context... precidence if you will, implications and interpretation is applicable when dscussing what the Constitution actually allows and the rights it identifies. Am I getting this right with you?
 
captaincourtesy said:
Well, I completely reject the concept of the existence of natural rights.
Click to expand...

So, since you reject the right to defend yourself, what do you do if someone breaks into your house and rapes your wife?? You reject the right to defend yourself, so what are you going to do, ask the guy nicely to stop? or do you defend yourself and slit the guys throat??... or did you mean something other then what you said?
 

My bed beckons me,... but I'll leave you with this;

Amendment IX

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

It is clearly the case that you are trying to use the strict wording of the Constitution to deny rights that it does not specifically list.

Yours is as clear a violation of the 9th Amendment as any example I have ever seen.

Sleep well.
 
Last edited:

Where did I say I rejected the right to defend myself? I'll tell you where... no where, since I didn't. This particular debate is quite intricate and would throw this thread entirely off topic, so we should not get into it, here.
 
Chuz Life said:
My bed beckons me,... but I'll leave you with this;

Amendment IX

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

Sleep well.
Click to expand...

Since the 9th indenfies rights that are not mentioned and are only implied to exist, there is no wonder that it is the most confusing of all of the first 10 Amendments. Unless one can identify what rights it actually discusses, it is all surface and little substance.
 

It is a fallacy to use the oldest definition of a word to define it. Words often change meanings over time.
 

civilian police officers are lousy shots for the most part. I would bet my house that the average class III machine gun owner is far more skilled in shooting than the average cop. Tell me-where does the federal government get the proper power to regulate machine guns

quick question to see if you are able to play in this game. What is the intended purpose of a full auto selector switch on an M4 rifle versus the semi auto switch?
 

absolutely true just as copies of gatling guns are legal. Now if you have an electronic fired mini-gun that's a different matter
 

what is really sad is the mentality that caused the first and second wave of gun control in the USA

the first wave was to prevent the freedmen from owning weapons

the second wave was to disarm "papist" immigrants

the latter part of that second wave was directed at Italians by the Irish politicians in NYC
 

thus you reject the underlying premise upon which the founders were operating and therefore your interpretation of the bill of rights is going to be very different from those who accept that premise. Ultimately the question comes down to--did the founders delegate to the federal government the power to regulate small arms? If the answer is no then all the sematincs about what the second amendment guarantees really is not all that interesting because the federal government has to have that delegated power to do anything and I note it properly does not.
 

It gets the power from the phrase "public interest". For example in Walz v NY Tax Commission the supreme court ruled that even though it is probably against the 2d amendment to give churches tax free status that it was in the public interest to do so.

In a case where the dangers to society outweigh the benefits of a right the public interest could trump certain enumerations. No right is completely absolute. Each one carries a certain responsibility to the common weal.
 
No no no. A million times no, there is no public interest served in limiting what people can own in the terms of firearms, only in what they do with them such as indiscriminate fire in public, attempted murder, actual murder, etc.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
It is a fallacy to use the oldest definition of a word to define it. Words often change meanings over time.
Click to expand...

The fallacy is the one you're proposing on using the current definitions for a law written 220+ years ago. You have to use the definition from the time of when the law was written to ascertain what the authors of the law meant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…