• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Niftydrifty wants a private debate

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I could not make a post in the M14 v Nifty private debate thread since it was locked.

But I dispute the contention that there is a general consensus that the second amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own guns.

In fact, there is a sound argument that the second amendment did not guarantee everyone the individual right to own weapons (do you think that congress in 1791 would really pass a law that gave blacks the constitutional right to own weapons?) but that what the second amendment guaranteed was the right keep and bear arms pursuant to a "well regulated militia".

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.

And all but 2 of the 11 federal appellate circuits (as well as numerous lower court decisions) have followed this interpretation in one form or another and held there is no absolute right of an individual to own guns.

I'm not going to repeat the debate on it here, if anyone is interested in the arguments they were debated in this thread, starting at post #48.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-law-enforcement-protection-act-2007-a-5.html
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon, I've read your opinions and you make good points. but what do most people believe? that's what I'm saying. If most Republicans and most Democrats say that the second protects an individual's right to own guns, then there's a consensus. It's a fact. Polls back up my statements.

If you truly dispute the contention that there is a general consensus that the second amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own guns, then demonstrate how there is not a majority opinion on the issue. show me the public opinion polls. arguing against the meaning of the words doesn't do that.

just FYI, here are links of interest.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Literary Analysis
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon, I've read your opinions and you make good points. but what do most people believe? that's what I'm saying. If most Republicans and most Democrats say that the second protects an individual's right to own guns, then there's a consensus. It's a fact. Polls back up my statements.

If you truly dispute the contention that there is a general consensus that the second amendment guarantees the right of individuals to own guns, then demonstrate how there is not a majority opinion on the issue. show me the public opinion polls. arguing against the meaning of the words doesn't do that.

just FYI, here are links of interest.

GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment

Literary Analysis

I don't know what the polls are, Nifty, and I don't particularly care, really. You may be right in that most folks believe there is such a right. I do believe, however (correct me if you think I am wrong) that a majority of people favor restrictions on gun ownership -- a position which is inconsistent with the concept that the constitution guarantees the right to own guns.

If there was a constitutional right to own guns then the many gun restriction and regulation laws around the country would have been struck down. The vast majority of court decisions have held there is no constitutional right for individuals to own guns. However, the Supreme Court had never decided the issue.

Whether it is liberal or conservative, however, there is definitely a line of thought (representing the vast majority of legal decisions) that the second amendment was not made to guarantee blacks and crazy folks could own guns, but that the right to keep and bear them was necessary for a well regulated militia. A "well-regulated" militia would ensure that the possession of the guns was limited to those who were responsible and desirable (ie no blacks) used in a responsible manner.

As for the merits of my contention as to this argument, please review the thread I cited for the arguments made, and after reading that, if you have any additional or new points or arguments, I'll gladly consider them. I don't have the time or inclination to regurgitate that entire thread.
 
Last edited:

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't know what the polls are, Nifty, and I don't particularly care, really. You may be right in that most folks believe there is such a right. I do believe, however (correct me if you think I am wrong) that a majority of people favor restrictions on gun ownership -- a position which is inconsistent with the concept that the constitution guarantees the right to own guns.

If there was a constitutional right to own guns then the many gun restriction and regulation laws around the country would have been struck down. The vast majority of court decisions have held there is no constitutional right for individuals to own guns. However, the Supreme Court had never decided the issue.

Whether it is liberal or conservative, however, there is definitely a line of thought (representing the vast majority of legal decisions) that the second amendment was not made to guarantee blacks and crazy folks could own guns, but that the right to keep and bear them was necessary for a well regulated militia. A "well-regulated" militia would ensure that the possession of the guns was limited to those who were responsible and desirable (ie no blacks) used in a responsible manner.

As for the merits of my contention as to this argument, please review the thread I cited for the arguments made, and after reading that, if you have any additional or new points or arguments, I'll gladly consider them. I don't have the time or inclination to regurgitate that entire thread.
I've reviewed the thread and found it interesting.

If you familiarized yourself with all the public opinion polls regarding the second amendment, you'd find that most people, Conservatives and Liberals alike, have contradictory opinions on the issue, which are not reconcilable.

Part of my whole deal here is simply to point out (to M14 Shooter) that it is impossible to characterize the debate as pro-gun-right and anti-gun-left. This is impossible to do in light of the facts. I tried to warn him but he wouldn't accept it.

Some people just go thru life with their hands over their eyes and ears, I guess.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've reviewed the thread and found it interesting.

If you familiarized yourself with all the public opinion polls regarding the second amendment, you'd find that most people, Conservatives and Liberals alike, have contradictory opinions on the issue, which are not reconcilable.

Part of my whole deal here is simply to point out (to M14 Shooter) that it is impossible to characterize the debate as pro-gun-right and anti-gun-left. This is impossible to do in light of the facts. I tried to warn him but he wouldn't accept it.

Some people just go thru life with their hands over their eyes and ears, I guess.

No argument here. It seems to me there are plenty of issues you guys have clashed on that you could pick one where you were both passionate about one side, as opposed to an issue you do not dispute.
 
Top Bottom