• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

The Ninth Amendment

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,511
Reaction score
79,437
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Prior to Heller, some of the cutting edge pro-rights legal theorists were starting to explore the 9th amendment as a venue for attacking idiocy like the Hughes Amendment or the Clinton AWB. after all-if "rights" the founders never mentioned, never discussed, and most likely never even gave a thought to as being rights (gay marriage, abortion, healthcare etc) are protected by the 9th amendment, why shouldn't a right that was clearly and constantly discussed by the founders be protected as well?

The ARC (Anti rights coalition-the term those of us in the pro-rights movement use to describe the various groups and individuals seeking to restrict or ban guns) has tried to pretend that the Second Amendment only matters to those actively in a state organization known as the "well regulated militia". While this flies in the face of the undisputed fact (See Cruikshank v. US and the writings of St George Tucker) that the founders saw the second as merely GUARANTEEING a pre-existing (government) natural right, some statist judges, misconstruing Cruikshank claimed that since the constitution did NOT CREATE the right, it does not exist.

Now Heller has pretty well destroyed that nonsense but Chelsea Clinton has brayed that her mother hopes to appoint justices who would reverse Heller

I would like to hear those who believe that the USSC correctly found various rights to abortion and gay marriage in the 9th Amendment, should not find a similar right to be armed as one chooses in the same amendment.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,313
Reaction score
7,560
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Prior to Heller, some of the cutting edge pro-rights legal theorists were starting to explore the 9th amendment as a venue for attacking idiocy like the Hughes Amendment or the Clinton AWB. after all-if "rights" the founders never mentioned, never discussed, and most likely never even gave a thought to as being rights (gay marriage, abortion, healthcare etc) are protected by the 9th amendment, why shouldn't a right that was clearly and constantly discussed by the founders be protected as well?

The ARC (Anti rights coalition-the term those of us in the pro-rights movement use to describe the various groups and individuals seeking to restrict or ban guns) has tried to pretend that the Second Amendment only matters to those actively in a state organization known as the "well regulated militia". While this flies in the face of the undisputed fact (See Cruikshank v. US and the writings of St George Tucker) that the founders saw the second as merely GUARANTEEING a pre-existing (government) natural right, some statist judges, misconstruing Cruikshank claimed that since the constitution did NOT CREATE the right, it does not exist.

Now Heller has pretty well destroyed that nonsense but Chelsea Clinton has brayed that her mother hopes to appoint justices who would reverse Heller

I would like to hear those who believe that the USSC correctly found various rights to abortion and gay marriage in the 9th Amendment, should not find a similar right to be armed as one chooses in the same amendment.

I never understood how the "right to privacy" between someone and their doctor could apply to abortions but not medical marijuana. If there is any part of the constitution that needs to be scraped it's the 9th amendment, it's a deus ex machina for what ever 5 judges decide they want to make a "right" for.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,389
Reaction score
21,366
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The problem with the 9th Amendment is we really have no idea what it was designed to protect. You could say that it provides a mechanism to ensure that government does not take away rights that are not yet named, but you could also say that this provides a mechanism where the Constitution cannot be interpreted as a means to take any rights away from the people in concert with other Constitutionally specified limitations on government.

I would argue we almost nullified whatever the purpose of the 9th Amendment was to mean as we consistently look to the government to limit or control something. What we also saw realized was a concern expressed by the Federalists where the whole idea of government operation was how to get around Constitutional limitations, and where non-specific utilize argument to craft means for government to limit or control something.

If you agree that the Bill of Rights in total was an effort to safeguard liberties from government interventions then we already can establish that overtime the government has nullified whatever non-named purpose was for the 9th Amendment.

We ask all the time for the courts to determine what are unenumerated or inferred rights to varying degrees of answer depending on subject. For example and for the purposes of this thread, there already are limitations on the 2nd Amendment. Politics aside for a moment on this subject, you cannot go out right now and buy any gun you want entirely on your terms with zero government interference.

Because of that realization we are going to have a hard time looking at all arguments using the 9th Amendment as equal. Because the 2nd Amendment mentions arms, but there is no Constitutional authority granted to the government to regulate relationships or marriage then applying the "gay marriage" to some other subject becomes problematic. We would have to craft an argument that unenumerated rights under the 9th Amendment allows (at least) for liberty in terms of relationships, decisions on abortions, etc. Consider the Row v Wade decisions. The stress was not on unenumerated rights in 9th Amendment terms, the stress was on a counterbalance between the rights of the unborn and the rights of privacy (that is more or less an unenumerated right but the 9th Amendment was not mentioned in Roe v Wade.)

What the Heller decision really did was illustrate stress on the "operative clause" of the second amendment far more than something overreaching from the 9th Amendment. Also, the Heller decision did not look at all guns as equal either. "Lawful weapons" and "military service weapons" were mentioned as not really defined terms, but intentions of restrictions. So you still ended up with a decision that did not contain absolutes.

In the end we are going to have a hard time looking at all of these decisions with stress on the 9th Amendment, which has no real specifics.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,389
Reaction score
21,366
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I never understood how the "right to privacy" between someone and their doctor could apply to abortions but not medical marijuana. If there is any part of the constitution that needs to be scraped it's the 9th amendment, it's a deus ex machina for what ever 5 judges decide they want to make a "right" for.

If anything, we need to clarify what the 9th Amendment really protects. Because we have seen different rights applied with different limitations at the hands of government, it becomes almost impossible to account for unnamed rights that will fall somewhere on that line of absolute right to a limited right. Last I checked unenumerated rights was never really defined in terms of absolute ability to have a liberty or something within government control. The language of the 9th Amendment only says "retained by the people," but not to what degree like say the 2nd Amendment that offers "shall not be infringed" or the 1st Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law" as absolutes (that we have already seen chipped away at anyway.)
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,606
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If anything, we need to clarify what the 9th Amendment really protects. Because we have seen different rights applied with different limitations at the hands of government, it becomes almost impossible to account for unnamed rights that will fall somewhere on that line of absolute right to a limited right. Last I checked unenumerated rights was never really defined in terms of absolute ability to have a liberty or something within government control. The language of the 9th Amendment only says "retained by the people," but not to what degree like say the 2nd Amendment that offers "shall not be infringed" or the 1st Amendment that says "Congress shall make no law" as absolutes (that we have already seen chipped away at anyway.)

It depends on the desire for removing such rights and invariably they are for expediency and no more. That is rephrased to be for the public good. Unfortunately the public are not very good at determining what is for their own good, it is up to the various interest groups to ensure the public are not misinformed or mislead.

This is where the 2nd falls down. There are no organisations who think informing the public is within their mandate or duty. It is left to individuals and grass roots effort instead of being given mainstream organisation support, funding and backing.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,606
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What if the 9th was intended as a catch all for what was not mentioned but obviously previously existed?
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,511
Reaction score
79,437
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What if the 9th was intended as a catch all for what was not mentioned but obviously previously existed?

sadly the machinations of the FDR administration meant that the commerce clause was used to give the government control over private citizens in all sorts of areas that the federal Government was never intended to have such power. IF the courts had actually done their job, the bill of rights would have never been needed since the federal government was never given any power over private citizens acting within their own states
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,606
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
sadly the machinations of the FDR administration meant that the commerce clause was used to give the government control over private citizens in all sorts of areas that the federal Government was never intended to have such power. IF the courts had actually done their job, the bill of rights would have never been needed since the federal government was never given any power over private citizens acting within their own states

True but if people had not swallowed the crap they were given at the time and organisations of the people who had the most to lose had done their job.... Ultimately if we get screwed by government who are we going to blame for that? These are our laws we police and enforce them. I think we should learn to look after our rights better and kick some butt in our organisations. It is never to late to start.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The problem with the 9th Amendment is we really have no idea what it was designed to protect. You could say that it provides a mechanism to ensure that government does not take away rights that are not yet named, but you could also say that this provides a mechanism where the Constitution cannot be interpreted as a means to take any rights away from the people in concert with other Constitutionally specified limitations on government.

I would argue we almost nullified whatever the purpose of the 9th Amendment was to mean as we consistently look to the government to limit or control something. What we also saw realized was a concern expressed by the Federalists where the whole idea of government operation was how to get around Constitutional limitations, and where non-specific utilize argument to craft means for government to limit or control something.

If you agree that the Bill of Rights in total was an effort to safeguard liberties from government interventions then we already can establish that overtime the government has nullified whatever non-named purpose was for the 9th Amendment.

We ask all the time for the courts to determine what are unenumerated or inferred rights to varying degrees of answer depending on subject. For example and for the purposes of this thread, there already are limitations on the 2nd Amendment. Politics aside for a moment on this subject, you cannot go out right now and buy any gun you want entirely on your terms with zero government interference.

Because of that realization we are going to have a hard time looking at all arguments using the 9th Amendment as equal. Because the 2nd Amendment mentions arms, but there is no Constitutional authority granted to the government to regulate relationships or marriage then applying the "gay marriage" to some other subject becomes problematic. We would have to craft an argument that unenumerated rights under the 9th Amendment allows (at least) for liberty in terms of relationships, decisions on abortions, etc. Consider the Row v Wade decisions. The stress was not on unenumerated rights in 9th Amendment terms, the stress was on a counterbalance between the rights of the unborn and the rights of privacy (that is more or less an unenumerated right but the 9th Amendment was not mentioned in Roe v Wade.)

What the Heller decision really did was illustrate stress on the "operative clause" of the second amendment far more than something overreaching from the 9th Amendment. Also, the Heller decision did not look at all guns as equal either. "Lawful weapons" and "military service weapons" were mentioned as not really defined terms, but intentions of restrictions. So you still ended up with a decision that did not contain absolutes.

In the end we are going to have a hard time looking at all of these decisions with stress on the 9th Amendment, which has no real specifics.

I think that the note on enumeration means that one right of the bill is no more important than the other. Thus the 1st is as important as the tenth. And because your right to walk across the street is not mentioned, it does not mean that you don't have it.

Moreover, with respect to the OP: lawyers are always looking for ways to cram the square peg into the round hole and say it's a good fit. This second amendment nonsense is nothing more than a divorce lawyer trying to defend non payment of child support: they'll try anything.
 
Last edited:

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
True but if people had not swallowed the crap they were given at the time and organisations of the people who had the most to lose had done their job.... Ultimately if we get screwed by government who are we going to blame for that? These are our laws we police and enforce them. I think we should learn to look after our rights better and kick some butt in our organisations. It is never to late to start.

What happened with the FDR administration was looking for a way to quell the hideous street violence of prohibition: Thompsons, BARs, sawed off shotguns, dynamite, etc etc. Nobody was coming up with any solutions, so the FDR administration did it's job. It's the same thing today, but the pro gun crowd has a crime promotion agenda.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,389
Reaction score
21,366
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think that the note on enumeration means that one right of the bill is no more important than the other. Thus the 1st is as important as the tenth. And because your right to walk across the street is not mentioned, it does not mean that you don't have it.

In principle I agree even thought we have a tendency to ask the courts what rights we really have that are not clearly specified against a government interest (regulation and/or limitation) for whatever purpose. Social justice, economic outcome, national security, what have you. It is a road we have already started to go down.

Something we may want to consider here is we have already pitted rights against one another as well, putting stress on the idea of equality of rights (explicit or otherwise.) For instance, the ongoing debate on protected classes against a potential debate on religious freedoms and expression. We saw it with segregation, and we see it today with "gay rights" (almost using the exact same argument.)

My fear is eventually we will force he courts to determine order of importance of rights, and once we do that there is no undoing it.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
In principle I agree even thought we have a tendency to ask the courts what rights we really have that are not clearly specified against a government interest (regulation and/or limitation) for whatever purpose. Social justice, economic outcome, national security, what have you. It is a road we have already started to go down.

Something we may want to consider here is we have already pitted rights against one another as well, putting stress on the idea of equality of rights (explicit or otherwise.) For instance, the ongoing debate on protected classes against a potential debate on religious freedoms and expression. We saw it with segregation, and we see it today with "gay rights" (almost using the exact same argument.)

My fear is eventually we will force he courts to determine order of importance of rights, and once we do that there is no undoing it.

That's very well said and factions have lawyers that complete agendas... These "rights fights", in my view, come about through agendas for one direction or another. Our constitution however is a beautiful trap that works for and against factions. "Founding Documents" were beautiful pieces of work and genius up until the time the black man starting using them, and as you say the gay rights movement is using them the very same way. And it works that way for all the factions, religious and second amendment among them: it's a two faced thing to such people.

I don't see the court "enumerating" rights however, though I do think that new rights will be invented every day.
 

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What happened with the FDR administration was looking for a way to quell the hideous street violence of prohibition: Thompsons, BARs, sawed off shotguns, dynamite, etc etc. Nobody was coming up with any solutions, so the FDR administration did it's job. It's the same thing today, but the pro gun crowd has a crime promotion agenda.

Can you elaborate just a bit on that? I'm not sure I agree and what I do know is that the FDR Regime was anti-American Rights, on so many levels.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,511
Reaction score
79,437
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I think that the note on enumeration means that one right of the bill is no more important than the other. Thus the 1st is as important as the tenth. And because your right to walk across the street is not mentioned, it does not mean that you don't have it.

Moreover, with respect to the OP: lawyers are always looking for ways to cram the square peg into the round hole and say it's a good fit. This second amendment nonsense is nothing more than a divorce lawyer trying to defend non payment of child support: they'll try anything.

the only second amendment nonsense we see on this board is from those who pretend that somehow the second amendment's blanket prohibition on government action somehow recedes or ends at a certain number of rounds or how scary the firearm looks
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,511
Reaction score
79,437
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What happened with the FDR administration was looking for a way to quell the hideous street violence of prohibition: Thompsons, BARs, sawed off shotguns, dynamite, etc etc. Nobody was coming up with any solutions, so the FDR administration did it's job. It's the same thing today, but the pro gun crowd has a crime promotion agenda.

a small problem but FDR did not want to give up a chance to pander to people in a problem CAUSED by the government (prohibition era gangsters).

Calling the pro gun movement as have a "crime promotion agenda" is the typical idiocy we see from the gun banners on this board
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Can you elaborate just a bit on that? I'm not sure I agree and what I do know is that the FDR Regime was anti-American Rights, on so many levels.

Well, number one, FDR was profoundly American, so I suggest you read up on he and American history: information is golden.

Secondly, the pro gun crowd's crime promotion agenda, does nothing about crime and put's itself ahead of the rest of us who think otherwise. So by supporting proliferation of illegal weapons and thinking the that best way to deal with crime is to shoot people, then the pro gun crowd is most assuredly promoting criminal activity at the expense of the rest of the country.

And as for your signature of denial, you should remember that a gun by itself does nothing the behavior of the man with a gun is what defines a problem.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,511
Reaction score
79,437
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Well, number one, FDR was profoundly American, so I suggest you read up on he and American history: information is golden.

Secondly, the pro gun crowd's crime promotion agenda, does nothing about crime and put's itself ahead of the rest of us who think otherwise. So by supporting proliferation of illegal weapons and thinking the that best way to deal with crime is to shoot people, then the pro gun crowd is most assuredly promoting criminal activity at the expense of the rest of the country.

And as for your signature of denial, you should remember that a gun by itself does nothing the behavior of the man with a gun is what defines a problem.

This post of Jet's seethes with silliness

just because FDR was an American (profoundly American-what does that mean) does not have any relevance to the fact that he did denigrate American constitutional rights including procedural and substantive due process, Substantive and procedural equal protection, and the powers of the several states. His internment of AMERICAN citizens would have resulted in impeachment and his rape of the second and tenth amendments is well documented

The banoid movement pretends that if you oppose the idiocy people Like Jet try to foist on us (bans on semi auto rifles, bans on normal capacity magazines, bans on CCW licenses) you support crime which is beyond stupid. In reality, if you think Jet's proposals actually decrease crime, you are enabling criminals because those solutions ONLY help armed criminals while disarming honest Americans.

Only criminal enablers believe the best way to stop violent crime is to DISARM their VICTIMS.

and I will predict we will not see even a suggestion of a rebuttal from Jet on this point of mine
 

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, number one, FDR was profoundly American, so I suggest you read up on he and American history: information is golden.

Secondly, the pro gun crowd's crime promotion agenda, does nothing about crime and put's itself ahead of the rest of us who think otherwise. So by supporting proliferation of illegal weapons and thinking the that best way to deal with crime is to shoot people, then the pro gun crowd is most assuredly promoting criminal activity at the expense of the rest of the country.

And as for your signature of denial, you should remember that a gun by itself does nothing the behavior of the man with a gun is what defines a problem.

Thus my signature....are you reading it backwards or what?

I was going to go into detail about why FDR was a turd, but TD covered it nicely.

The gun crowd is in no way supporting proliferation of illegal weapons. That's just made up malarky.....by you! Silly to the Max. What drivel.

This post of Jet's seethes with silliness

just because FDR was an American (profoundly American-what does that mean) does not have any relevance to the fact that he did denigrate American constitutional rights including procedural and substantive due process, Substantive and procedural equal protection, and the powers of the several states. His internment of AMERICAN citizens would have resulted in impeachment and his rape of the second and tenth amendments is well documented

The banoid movement pretends that if you oppose the idiocy people Like Jet try to foist on us (bans on semi auto rifles, bans on normal capacity magazines, bans on CCW licenses) you support crime which is beyond stupid. In reality, if you think Jet's proposals actually decrease crime, you are enabling criminals because those solutions ONLY help armed criminals while disarming honest Americans.

Only criminal enablers believe the best way to stop violent crime is to DISARM their VICTIMS.

and I will predict we will not see even a suggestion of a rebuttal from Jet on this point of mine

Thank You sir! Well stated!
 

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
the only second amendment nonsense we see on this board is from those who pretend that somehow the second amendment's blanket prohibition on government action somehow recedes or ends at a certain number of rounds or how scary the firearm looks

Damn straight!

a small problem but FDR did not want to give up a chance to pander to people in a problem CAUSED by the government (prohibition era gangsters).

Calling the pro gun movement as have a "crime promotion agenda" is the typical idiocy we see from the gun banners on this board

Idiocy in it's purest form, too! ;)
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
259,511
Reaction score
79,437
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Damn straight!



Idiocy in it's purest form, too! ;)

You love the attitude that we "ought to try banning stuff" just to see if it works when there is 40 years of history that banning guns only disarms honest people not criminals. when you see that sort of idiocy, you know that the real goal of those gun banners has NOTHING to do with public safety.

Its also hilarious watching people who claim that the ninth amendment clearly was properly used to strike down state laws against anal sex or abortion, turn around and claim the second amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,606
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You love the attitude that we "ought to try banning stuff" just to see if it works when there is 40 years of history that banning guns only disarms honest people not criminals. when you see that sort of idiocy, you know that the real goal of those gun banners has NOTHING to do with public safety.

Its also hilarious watching people who claim that the ninth amendment clearly was properly used to strike down state laws against anal sex or abortion, turn around and claim the second amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right

It's quite obvious right or wrong the 2A is in there way thus no matter what it needs to go. An infinitesimal fraction at a time is going to get them there just as sure as any other way.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Thus my signature....are you reading it backwards or what?

I was going to go into detail about why FDR was a turd, but TD covered it nicely.

The gun crowd is in no way supporting proliferation of illegal weapons. That's just made up malarky.....by you! Silly to the Max. What drivel.



Thank You sir! Well stated!

(chuckle)

The gun crowd supports the proliferation of illegal weapons that get into the streets. They do so by not campaigning against such proliferation and by not supporting efforts to do so. Thus the criminal element just helps themselves to what ever they want.

As I said, FDR was doing what he could to stop the proliferation of Thompson sub machine guns and sawed off shotguns and BARs, as used by Bonnie and Clyde for instance, that gave the gangs more fire power than the cops. That is the problem today as well. This notion that the government created gangsters is stupid. The prohibition created a market, that is true, but like any murderer, a man chooses his own path. If said gangsters had been limited to pistols and rifles the gang wars and police wars might have been very different. That is the reasonable argument. Therefore the drivel that TD is adding to this discussion is useless nonsense and just reiterates my point. By supporting proliferation the gun crown are the enablers.
 

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You love the attitude that we "ought to try banning stuff" just to see if it works when there is 40 years of history that banning guns only disarms honest people not criminals. when you see that sort of idiocy, you know that the real goal of those gun banners has NOTHING to do with public safety.

Its also hilarious watching people who claim that the ninth amendment clearly was properly used to strike down state laws against anal sex or abortion, turn around and claim the second amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right

Did you quote me here, by mistake?
 

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(chuckle)

The gun crowd supports the proliferation of illegal weapons that get into the streets. They do so by not campaigning against such proliferation and by not supporting efforts to do so. Thus the criminal element just helps themselves to what ever they want.

As I said, FDR was doing what he could to stop the proliferation of Thompson sub machine guns and sawed off shotguns and BARs, as used by Bonnie and Clyde for instance, that gave the gangs more fire power than the cops. That is the problem today as well. This notion that the government created gangsters is stupid. The prohibition created a market, that is true, but like any murderer, a man chooses his own path. If said gangsters had been limited to pistols and rifles the gang wars and police wars might have been very different. That is the reasonable argument. Therefore the drivel that TD is adding to this discussion is useless nonsense and just reiterates my point. By supporting proliferation the gun crown are the enablers.

As per usual, I disagree. Any proliferation of illegal weapons is a police action and has nothing to do with the gun crowd.

The "gun crowd" is all about freedom of law abiding citizens, to own whatever they want to own, and to protect their rights so that they may enjoy using said guns. Just like I enjoy driving all my Italian motorcycles.

As a career cop, I confiscated many guns over the years from criminals and especially, gangbangers. In no way, does any gun group, promote what you claim!

What you say is ....False!
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom