• 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.

the 2nd amendment conflicts with article 1 sec.10 clause 1 of the costitiution

Do u agree with this?


  • Total voters
    3
  • Poll closed .

shatteredxdreams8

New member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OK I've got a question? people debate about the right to bear arms in the United States, people that are against it say that the reason the U.S. constitutional writers wrote "the right to bear arms" was so that the states would be able to maintain a state militia, but in Article I sec.10 clause 1 of the Constitution it says "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." so according to that it would outlaw state militia so therefore proving that amendment 2 of the constitution was not made to let states maintain there state militias..
:confused:
 

DHard3006

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
214
Reaction score
0
Location
AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

shatteredxdreams8 said:
people that are against it say that the reason the U.S. constitutional writers wrote "the right to bear arms" was so that the states would be able to maintain a state militia,
There is no requirement to be in a militia to bear arms. The gun haters chant this lie because they want to ban the right to bear arms. A requirement to be in a militia to bear arms would be an infringement.
Proof that the gun haters just want to ban the right to bear arms was the late AWB. That ban banned 19 types of firearms that had a militia usefulness. The gun haters hide behind the Miller case to justify gun control laws. The court in that case said if a firearm has no useful militia use it is not protected by the 2nd amend. Well the 19 guns banned by the late AWB were of the type used for militia or military use.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
262,548
Reaction score
80,963
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
THere is a guy who surfs the web using several handles including "tim trammel" and "jimmy the one" who claims that Revolutionary area philosopher Rawles claimed that the RKBA was a subordinate clause to the first thus you have to be in the militia. Some also claim that various parts of the main body of the USSC allows the government to regulate arms. THis is false and the "state right" interpretation of the second amendment is not even taken seriously by legal scholars these days. Unfortunately, starting with a Supreme Court of Kansas ruling at the start of the century. several courts have wrongly interpreted the second and that is why the state right error continues

Here are some points

1) IF the second amendment only applies to those in a regular militia like the national guard, then the natural rights of all other citizens is recognized by the NINTH AMENDMENT

2) The commerce clause is used to justify federal gun control-the speciousness of that needs no explanation and conflicts with either the second or the Ninth

3) the national guard is a federal actor with the stroke of the President's pen. ONly a complete moron would claim that the second amendment-as part of the BOR empowers the federal government

4) THe odious Lautenberg amendment disbarred-retroactively, state troopers and guardsmen who had been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor-sometimes years before the LA was enacted. IF THE right was a state right, a federal law could not disarm a state militiaman

5) in the 1870's the Cruikshank case held that the Second amendment did NOT CREATE A Right TO KBA. THIS IS TRUE. IT ONLY RECOGNIZES a preexisting right. STATIST courts found that since it didn't create a right none existed. THIS IS THE BASIS FOR ALL THE ANTI INDIVIDUAL RIGHT JURISPRUDENCE-pathetic in its reasoning

6) gun hating judges know that the second and/or ninth and tenth amendments preclude federal gun control so they ignore it. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT made on the constitution for gun control GUn hating shills like Jimmy the One (a paid troll for the VPC) or Brady Consigliere Dennis Hennigan always couch their arguments as follows

a) bad precedent based on a clearly false reading of Cruikshank or b) guns are bad, screw the intent of the constitution and c) we have to pretend the second amendment says what we want it to say or people will have guns and kill everyone

there is no area of constitutional law where one side is more dishonest than second amendment issues and the Anti Rights Coalition and their paid shills (ARC)
 
Top Bottom