• 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!

The NRA Should Support the President's Executive Action on Guns

ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... So, in your expert legal opinion "the right of the people to..." does not describe an individual right? Is suppose, that using your "logic" then the 5A is not an individual right either, since person is merely the singular form of people. ;)
Click to expand...

The word "people" does not appear in the Fifth Amendment. What's your point?
 
flogger said:
Until background checks encompass all second hand gun sales too then its all pretty meaningless frankly :(
Click to expand...

America has gotten itself into its current predicament by being subjected to decades of gun cult propaganda. The way out will be slow and long. The President's actions are one step along the path.
 
countryboy said:
Then why does the Constitution make a distinction between the federal government, state governments, and the people?
Click to expand...

It had to take note of the reality of the times. The Founders went as far as they could.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
so you don't know how it will work but you just assume it will be better even though it is a proven fact that people that are going to commit crimes with guns don't buy them at gun shows? ...
Click to expand...

It could stop a few who might try.
 
Joe Steel said:
The word "people" does not appear in the Fifth Amendment. What's your point?
Click to expand...

My point should be obvious but, for you, I will try, yet again, to make it as clearly as I can.

The word person does appear in the 5A. Person is simply the singular form of the word people. Do you really have trouble with that simple concept?

Joe is a person while Joe, Jack and Jill are people. A right of the people is also a right of each person just as a right of each person is a right of the people.

Does that sufficiently explain my point?
 
Joe Steel said:
It could stop a few who might try.
Click to expand...

so the very large majority of people should be highly inconvenienced and put through an un-needed
process in the whims of a might? yea now we know that this is stupid unconstitutional act.
 
Joe Steel said:
It had to take note of the reality of the times. The Founders went as far as they could.
Click to expand...

More bull****. The Constitution is a document for the ages not just, "the times". :roll: Typical leftist usurper nonsense.
 
Joe Steel said:
Why do you believe this? Your mention of interstate commerce was the first I've seen. What makes you think it will be significant?
Click to expand...

Article 1, section 8, clause 3 states: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. When reading through the various historical papers such as the Federalist Papers they all make one thing perfectly clear. The Federal Government was to be the arbiter of foreign affairs and affairs between the individual States. This includes commerce between the States. Other than that, the States had full control of what happened in their borders including commerce that happens with in their respective State borders. Hence the wording "among the several States".

What you need to understand is that at the time that the Constitution was written the States were not so much "states" as they were "States". They were essentially mini-countries. Naturally the States did not want to give up any power that they had but recognized that they would have to give up some power for protection from invasions. In order for this to be accomplished they recognized that the Federal Government would have to have some power to carry out this main task. But they still would have guarded what power they had rather jealously. They never would have agreed to sign the Constitution had they not been able to regulate things inside their own borders. And the biggest thing to any country, even mini-countries, is commerce. It drives their own economies. So to think that they would give up control of commerce inside their own borders would be extremely naïve to say the least.

You should study up on the difference between interstate and intrastate commerce. While the two can be linked rather closely at times (which has led to quite a bit of expansion in the federal governments role of regulating commerce) there are still lines that cannot be crossed. Regulating private sales is one of those lines. Many court cases have revolved around the difference between interstate and intrastate commerce. Some court cases have interpreted it rather broadly in favor of the Federal Government, others have interpreted it rather narrowly in favor of States. For instance in Veazie v. Moor in 1853 the court ruled in favor of a state created steamboat monopoly because it involved regulation of wholly internal commerce.

Joe Steel said:
In the sense that judicial activism created the right, the Second Amdnemd isn't.
Click to expand...

Let me make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. Are you trying to say that judicial activism created individual rights? That before judicial activism there was no such thing as individual rights? And as such, based on the wording of the first amendment saying "people" instead of "person" that people do not have the individual right to free speech and as such can be banned from...say anti-government speech?
 
Joe Steel said:
No. It isn't; at least not in every case. People is a term of art. As such, it is not the plural of person.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

What’s the difference between people and persons? The fast-and-loose answer is that people is correct and persons is wrong; the former word has supplanted the latter as the plural form of person.

At one time, the distinction between the terms was that people is a mass noun referring to an undetermined number of humans (“I’ve known a lot of people like that”), while persons is employed when the quantity is known (“Seven persons were apprehended”). Persons is still appropriate in legal and other formal contexts (“Authorities are seeking persons of interest”) and when referring to the human body (“A search was made of their persons”), but in one of those curious cases of illogical semantic shift, it has all but disappeared in general usage.
Click to expand...

People vs. Persons
 
Joe Steel said:
No. It isn't; at least not in every case. People is a term of art. As such, it is not the plural of person.
Click to expand...

Lol, that depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is. Now where have I heard that before? :rolleyes:
 
Kal'Stang said:
... You should study up on the difference between interstate and intrastate commerce. ...
Click to expand...

I understand the difference but don't understand why you think difference makes a difference in this case.


Kal'Stang said:
Let me make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. Are you trying to say that judicial activism created individual rights? That before judicial activism there was no such thing as individual rights? And as such, based on the wording of the first amendment saying "people" instead of "person" that people do not have the individual right to free speech and as such can be banned from...say anti-government speech?
Click to expand...


The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

It prohibits Congress from making a law "abridging the freedom of speech." That's not the same thing as declaring a right of free speech. For example, judges restrict speech all the time.
 
Joe Steel said:
Nonsense.

You have your experts and I have mine.
Click to expand...

The difference being that I actually supplied mine. ;)

Perhaps you should simply read what the SCOTUS has to say on the matter of the 2A.
 
Joe Steel said:
America has gotten itself into its current predicament by being subjected to decades of gun cult propaganda. The way out will be slow and long. The President's actions are one step along the path.
Click to expand...

You do realize that it wasn't until 1934 that the very first Federal law was passed regarding firearms? Why do you think it took them soo long to institute something?

Also you do know that in John Cockrum vs The State in 1859, one of the appeals, the judges mentioned "the constitutional right of every citizen to bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state"? Look it up. ;)
 
Kal'Stang said:
You do realize that it wasn't until 1934 that the very first Federal law was passed regarding firearms? Why do you think it took them soo long to institute something?

Also you do know that in John Cockrum vs The State in 1859, one of the appeals, the judges mentioned "the constitutional right of every citizen to bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state"? Look it up.
Click to expand...

I know a lot of commentators have said a lot of things. I also know laws restricting gun possession were common before the NRA began flooding the media with gun cult propaganda.
 
Joe Steel said:
Here's a source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People





Why? Do you think the gun cult stooges on the Supreme Court have something to say other than what the NRA tells them to say?
Click to expand...

LOL. Your source simply says that people is the plural of persons, therefore each word describes groups comprised of more than one human being or person.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
LOL. Your source simply says that people is the plural of persons, therefore each word describes groups comprised of more than one human being or person.
Click to expand...

From the source:

The political theory underlying this format is that criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the sovereign; thus, in these U.S. states, the "people" are judged to be the sovereign, even as in the United Kingdom and other dependencies of the British Crown, criminal prosecutions are typically brought in the name of the Crown. "The people" identifies the entire body of the citizens of a jurisdiction invested with political power or gathered for political purposes.
Click to expand...

I've said that repeatedly in this an other forums.
 
Joe Steel said:
From the source:



I've said that repeatedly in this an other forums.
Click to expand...

Yep, but reading, your same source, just a tad further offers this nugget:

"The people" identifies the entire body of the citizens of a jurisdiction invested with political power or gathered for political purposes.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but reading, your same source, just a tad further offers this nugget:

"The people" identifies the entire body of the citizens of a jurisdiction invested with political power or gathered for political purposes.
Click to expand...


That's it exactly. That's why we have a First Amendment right of assembly. The government cannot interfere with citizens gathering to form the People.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom