• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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.

True debate between Ludin and Jet57

Status
Not open for further replies.

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,237
Reaction score
14,252
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There will be a true debate between Ludin and Jet57 discussing the topic of gun control. There will be a discussion thread created once their debate has concluded and a poll for users to vote on who they believe had the strongest debate performance. When the time comes to vote, please vote based on individual debate performance and not just for the view you agree with. The rules for the debate are as follows:

Each candidate will be allotted 10 posts with Ludin opening the debate and Jet57 concluding.

Every source used must be referenced to the original source.

Each user will post one time and will not be able to post again until their opponent has replied.

Standard global forum rules will alsoapply.

The general flow of the debate will be one user posts and the next poster will respond. Each point in each post should be addressed (however this is not required).

Forum users besides the two in the true debate must refrain from posting in this thread. The discussion thread with poll will be created once this debate has concluded.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gun Control has been a topic of great discussion lately but there needs to be a closer look at the arguments being made with less political bias involved.
The 2nd amendment is a right given to the people it puts a limit on government of what the government can do. That is why it is part of the Bill of Rights.
These were written to ensure limited government over reach on the people and to protect the people from government.

Many of the Amendments in the bill of writes were already bound in common law in their states, but the Founding Fathers found it needed to
mention them at the federal level to ensure consistency and limit the power of the federal government.

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center (James Madison Research Library)
They revered English customs and law. Chief Justice Howard Taft observed that:

"[t]he Framers of our Constitution were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them; but, when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed themselves in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood."

The second amendment states
"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."

Is consistent with the frame work that the Howard Taft quoted. It is short and simple to understand.

There is a word that needs to be defined but it needs to be defined in the way it was written. Regulated means "well Functioning" in this context. so a better reading of this is.

A well functioning Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Next we need to determine who the militia was. According to the founders a militia was any able bodied man with the ability to carry a gun.

The 2nd amendment is consistent with other changes and shorting of amendments for example.
The 1st draft of the 1sst amendment read:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

Later it was shortened to what we have today. Why? it was already established in common law and the Founding Fathers felt better to speak in generalities that cover everything rather than
with minute specifics.

This follows the same into the 2nd amendment.
The 2nd amendment was an individual right to bear arms from it's conception as it was founded in common law already.
Not only that but many states already had such provisions in their constitutions and the since the bill of rights was meant
to limit the power of government it only made sense.

Don Kates gave me a clearer appreciation of what the controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists was all about:

"While none of the Founders liked the idea of a standing army, the majority (Madison strongly included) believed it to be necessary. The Second Amendment was not a response to Anti-federalist criticism of the standing army. All the Bill of Rights were added because of a desire to disarm what Madison and the other Federalists saw as an Anti-federalist quibble, a strawman objection to the lack of a Bill of Rights which was intended to excite the fear and passion of the masses but which statesmen on both sides viewed as negligible. Madison just wrote up a set of principles ― of truisms ― in which everybody believed, and the Congress duly passed it as the Bill of Rights. Two of these truisms that got cobbled into one article were: that there is a natural right to be armed; and that militias are a good thing, a much better thing than a standing army, however necessary it may be."

Further more this individual right is mentioned in the 1st and 4th amendment as well. The right of the people is an individual Right and has been ruled as such by many courts.

POST CONTINUED BELOW
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
People attempt to re-word this amendment into something that it was never read or deemed to be. The 2nd amendment is very clear that the right of people to bear arms
shall not be infringed.

Infringe means:
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

People that argue gun control attempt to undermine the nature of the 2nd amendment and the word infringe.
according to the 2nd amendment there is no limit on the arms that people can bear.
Nor is government able to infringe on those rights.

Groups of people are attempting to disarm the populace which is what the founding fathers feared. The fact that it is trying to
be done in the name of protection is worse.

The whole reason for the 2nd amendment in the first place was multiple reasons: (from the James Madison Research Library.)
First. as David Young reports,

"Most Americans were accustomed to having their individual rights protected from violation from the government because approximately two-thirds of the population of the United States lived in states with constitutional bills of rights. In most of the other States some individual rights were protected in the state constitutions…. An armed populace was guaranteed in one way or another in every bill of rights of the original states [of those seven states ― Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts (and later Vermont, after it was recognized as a separate state in 1791) ― that chose to draft one]. These provisions were the early progenitors of the Second Amendment, since it was the state bills of rights which were cited when the necessity of adding a bill of rights limiting the federal government was discussed later during the controversy over ratification of the United States Constitution."

Second, whether for frontier engagements with hostiles, for hunting, or for duty in the militia, practically the entire adult male population was armed. We know that many of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason, were gun collectors. Many had served in armed combat during the Revolution and presumably had brought their weapons home upon the cessation of hostilities; a large number, of course, were hunters; and some were even marksmen. James Madison, for example, boasted that he could hit a small target at 100 yards...but he admitted that he was far from the best marksman

Third, there were no police. just as in England at the time (which had no police force until 1829), America had no police during the colonial period (the first American police force was not organized until 1845). As Don Kates points out, "Even then [in England and America] the police were forbidden arms, under the view that if these were needed they could call armed citizens to their aid." (Ironically, the only gun control in nineteenth century England was the policy of forbidding police to have arms while on duty.)

Fourth, Americans (and their English cousins) were keenly aware of what could befall an unarmed populace. The historical example probably most familiar to eighteenth-century Englishmen and Americans was the persecution that drove thousands of Huguenots to the shores of both countries. As the historian Barbara Tuchman has noted:

"Among the numerous tribulations visited in the 1690s upon the [unarmed] Huguenots in order to compel them to convert [to Catholicism], the most atrocious – and effective ― were the dragonades, or billeting of dragoons on Huguenot families with encouragement to behave as viciously as they wished. Notoriously rough and undisciplined, the enlisted troops of the dragoons spread carnage, beating and robbing the householders, raping the women, smashing and wrecking and leaving filth…."

They already knew the consequences of a disarmed populace in fact the attempt by the British to disarm the colonist that really sparked the revolutionary war.
How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution | David Kopel - Academia.edu

Even guns today are required for self defense, but not only that hunting and sports shooting.
from the author of the national self defense survey.

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth - POLITICO Magazine

The actual study reference
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6936&context=jclc

it is estimated that there are at least 500k self defense gun actions a year in the US.
of those about 50-60% involve a gun being shot.

This sheriff along with others have made the call for people to defend themselves as the police either can't or won't be able to respond in time.
Milwaukee County Sheriff: 'You Have A Duty To Protect Yourself' : NPR
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Though the opening statement has no thesis, the presumption can be made that ludin is against gun control. The arguments against gun control from his quarter usually go like this:
Oh! do let me help. There is no end to gun control and gun control will not discuss any surrender at any point. Nor will gun control discuss any valid reason for firearm ownership. There is only one logical conclusion so do not ask for proof of it. Show why it is not going to happen.

“Gun Control” is the topic and a definition of terms is required: Gun control legal definition of gun control

Government regulation of the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms.
The Second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is at the heart of the issue of gun control. The SecondAmendment declares that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of thepeople to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

To many, the language of the amendment appears to grant to the people the absolute right to bear arms. However,the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the amendment merely protects the right of states to form a state militia(United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 [1939]).

Even before the Miller opinion interpreted the Second Amendment in 1939, Congress, state legislatures, and local governing bodies were passing laws that restricted the right to bear arms. Kentucky passed the first statelegislation prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, in 1813. By 1993, firearms were regulated byapproximately 23,000 federal, state, and local laws.

Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in the Heller vs D.C. decision in 2008, that the second amendment is not an unlimited right:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Gun control as method of law enforcement for the protection of the public and has been working toward that end in the United States for generations. An 1833 Georgia law was passed that prohibited black men, either slave or free man from possessing firearms:
Georgia enacts a law that provides, "it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever …… that the free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes, and that the fire arms so found in the possession of said free person of colour, shall be exposed to public sale …."
**link

The fact is, that since a very early date in American History, gun control has been a big part of crime prevention and legislative history in this country and studies have shown that it indeed works in preventing gun crime:
Largest study to date finds powerful evidence that gun control actually works
This is important.
FIONA MACDONALD 2 MAR 2016
As the US continues to stall on gun control talks, the largest study ever conducted on the topic has found a clear link between firearm regulation and fewer gun-related deaths around the world.

Until now, studies on gun laws have been limited to just one city or country, and have failed to reach consistent conclusions. But the new research took a broader view - the team reviewed 130 high-quality studies conducted in 10 countries over the past 60 years. And while they stopped short of saying they've conclusively proved that gun restrictions equal fewer deaths, the research provides pretty powerful evidence to suggest that it's the case.
Largest study to date finds powerful evidence that gun control actually works - ScienceAlert

It has been said that the political struggle of US gun control actually began following the assignation of JFK in 1963 and the general public’s concern over the ease with which guns were purchased in the US. In Stockton California in 1989 Patrick Purdy killed 5 school children and wounded 32 in a mass shooting which prompted California’s assault weapons ban The Assault Weapons Act of 1989:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf


California Department of Justice FIREARMS DIVISION Randy Rossi, Director

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/200004.pdf

End page 1
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Continued

The 1994 Brady Act was a federal assault weapons ban that was allowed to sunset in 2004 under the GW Bush administration. The powers for congress to create such legislation comes under the US Constitution’s Artcle 1, Sec: 8, clause three, known as the commerce clause; “Congress has the power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. Which brings up the word “regulate” as a term that should be defined. The word “regulate” as in “to regulate” is legally defined here:

Legal Dictionary | Law.com

The more accessible and more common definition is: Regulate | Define Regulate at Dictionary.com

Regulate: verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

synonyms: 1. rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct. 2. set.4. systematize.


As for our traditional militia system, congress’s powers of regulation also come in Article 1 Sec, 8
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and 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 authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.
Thus the famous part of the second amendment ; “A well regulated militia…” is thus answered.

Here we should say something about The Founding Fathers: a ubiquitous term adored by conservative politicians that suggests a hallowed group of silver haired men with provenance of deity sweeping their arms as they preached the gospel of liberty and democracy… One of such men at the constitutional convention was Jonathon Dayton of New Jersey, who was 26 at the time, and 11 at the Declaration in 1776. Thomas Jefferson was 33 then. At the convention of 1787, the ages of some of the more popular framers were: Alexander Hamilton (NY) Age: 30, Thomas Jefferson (VA) Age: 44, John Hancock (MA) Age:51, George Washington (VA) Age: 55, Benjamin Franklin (PA) Age: 81; the only one that could be considered a “sliver haired founder”. The point being, that in 1775, the country was taken over by young radicals who abhored the crown of England and took up armed insurrection against it. Thus the second amendment and it’s duty to protect the country and the states. The culture of criminal armament was not an issue in that time frame. Most all hand guns and rifles were flintlock, later cap and ball. Semi auto combat weapons and automatic weapons with 30 or 100 round magazines were not an issue. Safe streets became an issue however, and Georgia worked that out for itself only 44 years later with one of the earliest acts of gun control in the country. Free men living in the United States, were for the first time in our history, were not allowed to own a gun.

In the 1659 Special Census of Ireland, in the province of Ulster, there was one man, a Catholic, who was the only such person in the entire county of Down who was “permitted” officially, to own a rifle.

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

A Special Census of Northern Ireland; published by Rev. George Hill 1846.

End Page 2
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Continued

Page 3

With the 1934 National Fireamrs Act, two things came into account; FDR is said to have been motivated by an assassination attempt on himself, and secondly gangland outlaws had been equipping themselves with very expensive Thompson sub machine guns and Browning Automatic rifles, John Dillinger being chief among them. Gun control as such has been legal, supported by the Supreme Court and in fact a ban on manufacturing assault weapons in this country lasted ten years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...c8d624-4ad3-11e2-9a42-d1ce6d0ed278_story.html

Here I’ll add a note about the opening statements use of The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

Yet, while engaged in bringing about one of the most radical political changes in the history of the Western world, the Founding Fathers remained conservative republicans who valued tradition and their English heritage ― the dynasties of the Angles, Saxons, Picts, and Jutes; 1066 and the Norman Conquest; the Magna Carta; the reigns of the Norman, Lancastrian, Plantagenet, Tudor, Stuart, and Hanoverian kings, the Civil Wars; the Restoration; the Glorious Revolution; and, most particularly, the Age of Enlightenment and the Whig philosophies that came to dominate English political thought during the hundred years preceding the American Revolution.

The first thing we take into account is ludin’s own opening first line:
Gun Control has been a topic of great discussion lately but there needs to be a closer look at the arguments being made with less political bias involved.

Of course the second line of his opening source says that:
the Founding Fathers remained conservative republicans who valued tradition and their English heritage

Who made that distinction? So much for an unbiased argument. The paragraph is a run on sentence that makes no point and again, has no thesis. One of the authors of this web site is NRA president Wayne La Pierre, a conservative Republican himself, so ludin contradicts his own standard of the debate.

The facts are the facts. Gun control has a long history of legal sanction in this country, though there are successful cases that have challenged some of the laws. Overall however, gun control has remained an effective part of assisting to control the gun violence and proliferation that haunts our larger cities and gives rise to the mass shootings we have suffered of late, the latest being seven police officers in Louisiana. The Supreme Court has agreed with the gun control, also saying that the second amendment is not and unlimited right. The second amendment was designed and so states that protection of the free states is the mission, as we were all too clear about armed insurrection, our own country having been generated by one. Moreover, the right to keep and bear – as a right, is an American invention that was aimed at arming local militias. Gun control works, it’s legal, and it does not violate the second amendment.

End Page 3, post 1
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My opponent already starts off by simply assuming what the argument is and putting words in posts and arguments that simply do not exist. This is commonly referred to as a strawman argument.
Nor did he deal with any of the actual facts that were stated in the opening. So there is a major issue in however I will address his points as he published them.

I will address his comments on the what Scalia said later on when the topic actually comes up.

So let us deal with the GA law that he posted.

Gun control as method of law enforcement for the protection of the public and has been working toward that end in the United States for generations. An 1833 Georgia law was passed that prohibited black men, either slave or free man from possessing firearms.

While he lists this as gun control this was very much prevalent through the entire south during that time. They felt that allowing slaves to arm themselves would be a bad idea not only would they
have an enemy at their front the north but at their back as well which would have been the slaves fighting for freedom. It wasn't just the south either even northern states had similar laws
however they are aimed and targeted only at black people. Therefore I would say that the laws during this time were more racially motivated than they were for gun control purposes as
it did not affect white people at all.

Next my opponent links a study however the actual study is behind a pay wall and well I am not paying 40 dollars to actually read the study.
so the only basis from the study that we have is what the author of the article states, However while not in full there is a Letter to the editor of the oxford Journals
discussing this very study.

RE: ?WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN FIREARM LEGISLATION AND FIREARM-RELATED INJURIES??

you can actually read the first page without paying and it points out some glaring errors that were made in the study itself.

While he does state gun control legislation when compared to the historical context of the 2nd amendment then it should not have passed or been held as
constitutional. The only way for to actually be passed is for judges to overlook the historical context and meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Next he cites the brady bill and assault weapons ban. This is 100% inaccurate as the Brady Bill had nothing to do with assault weapons.
From The ATF itself.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law

On November 30, 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted, amending the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Brady Law imposed as an interim measure a waiting period of 5 days before a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an unlicensed individual.

It simply enacted a 5 day waiting period before someone could sell or transfer hand gun to another person. This only affected dealers and not individual sales.
The Brady bill has never expired and is in fact still enforced.

What the opposition is actually citing is the Violent Crime Control and Law enforcement Act. In this act was The Federal Assault Weapons ban.
It did ban certain semiautomatic weapons and characteristics of guns.

Once again the opposition only quotes half of it. The reason for the militia was to protect the free state, in order to do that people have the right to bear arms.
This wasn't something that was granted by government. This was an already existing right to protect ones home, land, property and freedom.
Without the right to bear arms people cannot defend themselves, hunt or even in that day practice shooting or shooting competitions.


continued below
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
continued from above
Next I have to call into question the source that is used in the quote that he made.
It goes directly against what he cites Scalia ss saying above when citing Washington DC vs heller.
As the same argument could be said of the SCOTUS, However there is more validity to citing, However a source is required as to the validity of the argument
being made by the opposition.

the founding fathers and what they thought than people 200 years later, however let us see what Heller established.

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. (refutes a popular argument by gun ban advocates.) This had also been establish way before.


(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. (another popular argument from gun ban advocates)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html


He then goes back the GA law that only banned black people from owning firearms. The same law existed in many places including northern states. Of course these states also had laws
that banned black people from having dogs as well as they could use it as a weapon. So we can dismiss this as racial prejudice rather than gun control.

Next the opposing fails to address the actual facts citing and instead attempts to ad hominem the source.
what is worse is that he sites 1 author as evidence while ignoring the other information listed.
more so direct quotes from the Founding Fathers themselves. He continues to ad homimen.

The CDC published a study in 2013 on Gun Defense.
Main points were.

1. Crime and gun violence is getting better not worse.
“Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.”

2. Handguns are an issue. 83% of homicides involve a handgun. most of those are either gang or drug related.
3. Mass shootings are not an issue. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.

4. Gun Suicide is worse than Gun Homicide.
5. Guns are used for self defense often and effectively.
Handguns, suicides, mass shootings deaths, and self-defense: Findings from a research report on gun violence.

While there are things that are smart such as background checks no legal citizen should be denied the right to bear whatever arm he wants.
Gun control laws have been found to be unconstitutional as they deny legal citizens the right to carry arms and defend themselves,
hunt, target practice. There is no vested in the interest to the government to limit a legal citizens right to own and bare firearms.

that is what shall not be infringed means.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Again, As a debater here, I have no idea what ludin's argument is. He has no thesis statement and I am entering post # 9 of the debate. I can only surmise that he is trying to say that gun control violates the second amendment. I have nothing else to go on.

Gun control, as such, does NOT violate the second amendment. I have shown that as "crime prevention" US gun control has a history in the US that dates to at least 1833. Conditions are not a factor in the proof: the proof shows that gun control was active legislatively under the conditions of the 10th amendment and state's powers.

The Supreme Court has said, in Heller vs DC that - the second amendment is NOT an unlimited right.

I have given credible definitions for the terms "gun control" and "regulation" that refute my opponent's definitions.

I have shown that the congress has such powers of "regulations" and that under the second amendment, the "militia" shall be so "regulated".

I have shown that there has been in our history, from 1994 - 2004 a ban on all newly manufactured "Assault Weapons" and "large capacity magazines".

Currently eight states have gun regulations that restrict the sale and ownership of certain weapons, and I have supplied California's legal list.

Some may not like the idea of gun control. Some may not like the weapons that make the list; M16 rifles are banned from public sale and the facts are - gun control under the examples I've given do not in fact violate the second amendment and the Supreme Court has agreed. If there was such a violation of a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, then the federal ban would never have been signed and put into practice.

Finally; I never linked to a pay service view. I linked to an article that reviewed a study.

My opponent has still to prove that legalized gun control in this country violates rights under the second amendment, and that my definitions of the terms he has chosen are incorrect.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My opponent still has gone from an opening statement which was strawman to now a hand waving fallacy.
He cannot refute what the second amendment says on the ability for right of people to bear arms.

The court system themselves have even ignored what the 2nd amendment says on the right of people to bear arms shall not
be infringed.

The opponent also fails to realize that the automatic weapon bans is only for guns that were made after 1986.
So if you can find a m16 with a receive that was made before 1986 have the proper background check and stamps
you are legally able to own a full automatic weapon.

Just as if you have the proper stamps you can own grenades, tanks etc ...(with working main gun).

There is no reason that legal citizens cannot bear any arms that police or even military could.
Gun control in itself does not stop criminals. As criminals do not care about the laws.

Gangs and drug cartels that operate in the US wield illegal weapons all the time. Gun control laws have done nothing to stop them
from doing so. The only thing it has done is stop legal citizens and in some cases turning them into law violators.

Then my opponent has to use circular logic in an attempt by the federal government to use the assault weapons ban which he got wrong
to begin with by citing the Brady Bill which had nothing to do with assault weapons.

He also failed to address a study by the CDC that shows that semi-automatic rifles and large capacity magazines are not an issue.
That the real issue are hand guns.

In fact he has failed to really address any of the information that counters him.
He simply hand waves and ignores what the definition of infringe is.

He then denies linking to a pay service. This is simply false. If you click on his article.
and then click the link to the study it is behind a pay all. So we can only go by the authors opinion
of that study, he then ignores a link I provided that counters that study as flawed and doesn't follow
several methods correctly and assumes.

I have proven it. The second amendment says that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
I defined infringed in my first post.

Gun control can and does infringe on the peoples right to bear arms. Heller and consequently the other ruling that came in Chicago and
their gun control bans were ruled unconstitutional.

The fact that judges ignore their constitutional duty to uphold it does not mean that they are correct.
My opponent also ignores that people defend themselves every day with gun. There has been study
after study and paper after paper that confirms this time and time again.

Gun control advocate are simply attempting to disarm the populace over something that they simply do not like.
they expect that criminals will follow in suit and just start obeying the law.

So far they have yet to do this even with all the gun control laws in place.
The statistics don't lie.

They are trying to limit people from using legitimate guns from their proper uses such as hunting, shooting competitions, and target practicing.
They for some reason believe that banning certain features will stop what amounts to 1% of all shootings in the US.

COntinued below.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
continued from above
The majority of shootings are done with hand guns and those are mostly suicides, gang or drug related shootings.
He attempted to use 1800 race laws as an argument of gun control when they can clearly be seen as not.

The founding fathers and people that were influential in helping with the constitution were clear on their intent of the 2nd amendment.

Thomas Jefferson.
The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, … or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.

As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Never think of taking a book with you.

John Adams.
Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence.

George Mason one of the main writers of the bill of rights.

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...

this is ultimately the goal of gun control advocate. a clear disarming of the populace.

Thomas Paine. [Partial Quote]
The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong.

I also defined infringed. that does not mean infringement.

also according to fact checker on this issue
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...040d61e-5b7a-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_blog.html
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
After almost 30,000 words my opponent has finally furnished a thesis statement:


Gun control can and does infringe on the peoples right to bear arms. Heller and consequently the other ruling that came in Chicago and
their gun control bans were ruled unconstitutional.


He supports his thesis with this statement:
The fact that judges ignore their constitutional duty to uphold it does not mean that they are correct.

What ludin has failed to do is show that all of the gun control laws that have been, and are active in this state in fact violate the second amendment to the US constitution. Nor has he shown that Antonin Scalia's own words in the Heller decision:

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns | Big Think


The United States Supreme Court thereby supports gun control. One cannot walk into to nay guns tore and purchase and M16 assault rifle. My opponent however lays out the hoops that one must jump through in order to own an M16. By definition THAT is gun control.

Ludin like to talk about James Madison; Madison argues that a militia will always outnumber an army Of Arms and the Law: Federalist No. 46: Madison's brilliance

In Federalist No. 46, Madison calculates (quite accurately, BTW) that the new government could support a standing army of no more than 25,000 men, and To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. . . . Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Madison further states that between the federal and state governments, the states must have the clear advantage. Enter the 10th Amendment, and the powers of the states to legislate their own gun control.

End Page 1
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Page 2

So ludin has in not shown that said gun controls, dating to at least 1833 in fact violate the second amendment.

Further: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/brady-law

Brady Law

On November 30, 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted, amending the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Brady Law imposed as an interim measure a waiting period of 5 days before a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an unlicensed individual. The waiting period applies only in states without an acceptable alternate system of conducting background checks on handgun purchasers. The interim provisions of the Brady Law became effective on February 28, 1994, and ceased to apply on November 30, 1998. While the interim provisions of the Brady Law apply only to handguns, the permanent provisions of the Brady Law apply to all firearms.

1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban

The text of the bill below is as of May 16, 1994 (Placed on Calendar in the Senate).

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr4296/text

The AR 15 IS on the list of banned weapons as it is an item of focus today. Therefore, with all of this "gun control" at work in the United States and with Supreme Court support, how can active gun control in this country possibly be a violation of the second amendment? My opponent would like to think so, but the facts demand otherwise. Gun registration and background checks: supported by the NRA IS gun control.

At no time in this debate has ludin disproven that "gun control" is NOT a violation of the second amendment.

End Post # 3
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My opponent continues his strawman and distortion arguments by half quotes and not actually arguing anything that was said.
On top he still has not acknowledge the actual referencing by the 2nd amendment and instead rely's on the SCOTUS rulings.
this is faulty as the court has proven itself to inject personal bias and personal opinion into their rulings and ignoring historical context
of the constitution over the years.

It gets even worse by his one quote a few days ago that harped about people referencing the founding fathers as a bunch of silver hair old guys to paraphrase.
a link for which he still has not provided and for good reason.

He still has yet to show that gun control is constitutional based on the wording of the 2nd amendment.

He did nothing to contradict my previous posts from people that had either written or had great influence in the writing
of the constitution.

I think it is a huge assumption on both scalia to assume what the authors meant. if you read what they wrote about the
2nd amendment you would see clearly that they had no intention of limiting or banning gun use for good reason.

The biggest fear among both Federalist and anti-federalist was a central powered government with a standing military.
They had already lived through something similar to this and knew that the only way that the people of the states could remain
free would be to keep the people armed.

that is why even today people are allowed to own machine guns, grenades, even tanks.

So far Jet has not actually shown any gun control laws going back to 1833.
He then goes back to the brady bill which has nothing to do with assault weapons.

so he repeats previously failed argument again.

The assault weapons ban was unconstitutional. unfortunately a court refused to do their duty to uphold the constitution and allowed it. it was a knee jerk reaction the same
that is happening again. knee jerk reactions to disarm legal citizens from their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms per the 2nd amendment.

he still refuses to acknowledge the word infringe. The fact that the rights right to bear arms shall not be infringed at all.
Gun control is unconstitutional based on the constitution that says the right of the people to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I have posted the definition of infringement already in which jet and evidently the SCOTUS ignores.

I have proven it time and time again per the constitution of the US.
Not to mention I have backed this up with the people that wrote the constitution and their thoughts on it.

Having requirements in order to buy a gun is not what I consider gun control.
banning guns or features or magazines is unconstitutional as it infringes on a persons ability to arm themselves.

no where in the constitution does it say that infringements mean infringements like what is trying to be argued.

unless he can come up with a different meaning to the phrase

"the Right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

gun control very much is unconstitutional. the fact that we do not have a judge pool that follows the constitution
does not in and of itself negate that it is unconstitutional.

so far jets only argument is to repeat himself constantly which doesn't actually prove anything.
He has ignored studies and other evidence posted. The only other argument he can make is to strawman and distort what is being said.

If fact in 1792 it was required that all men carry a military style weapon.
there were reason for the laws enacted that Jet has proposed.

1. The Northern states during the revolutionary war did not want to arm their enemies. many black people joined the ranks of the british army
as they were promising them freedom.
2. There were many white people in the north still loyal to the britians. it wasn't so much of a gun control law as it was
a military move to limit your enemies ability to get or own weapons.

what he fails to mention is by 1860 they had amended the law and black people were allowed to carry guns and fight.
if you look at the history of said laws they were more military strategy than gun control.

What is worse is that he quotes James Madison but doesn't understand what he is quoting.
He is actually quoting Madison's Favor for gun ownership.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
My opponent continues his strawman and distortion arguments by half quotes and not actually arguing anything that was said.
On top he still has not acknowledge the actual referencing by the 2nd amendment and instead rely's on the SCOTUS rulings.
this is faulty as the court has proven itself to inject personal bias and personal opinion into their rulings and ignoring historical context
of the constitution over the years.

It gets even worse by his one quote a few days ago that harped about people referencing the founding fathers as a bunch of silver hair old guys to paraphrase.
a link for which he still has not provided and for good reason.

He still has yet to show that gun control is constitutional based on the wording of the 2nd amendment.

He did nothing to contradict my previous posts from people that had either written or had great influence in the writing
of the constitution.

I think it is a huge assumption on both scalia to assume what the authors meant. if you read what they wrote about the
2nd amendment you would see clearly that they had no intention of limiting or banning gun use for good reason.

The biggest fear among both Federalist and anti-federalist was a central powered government with a standing military.
They had already lived through something similar to this and knew that the only way that the people of the states could remain
free would be to keep the people armed.

that is why even today people are allowed to own machine guns, grenades, even tanks.

So far Jet has not actually shown any gun control laws going back to 1833.
He then goes back to the brady bill which has nothing to do with assault weapons.

so he repeats previously failed argument again.

The assault weapons ban was unconstitutional. unfortunately a court refused to do their duty to uphold the constitution and allowed it. it was a knee jerk reaction the same
that is happening again. knee jerk reactions to disarm legal citizens from their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms per the 2nd amendment.

he still refuses to acknowledge the word infringe. The fact that the rights right to bear arms shall not be infringed at all.
Gun control is unconstitutional based on the constitution that says the right of the people to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I have posted the definition of infringement already in which jet and evidently the SCOTUS ignores.

I have proven it time and time again per the constitution of the US.
Not to mention I have backed this up with the people that wrote the constitution and their thoughts on it.

Having requirements in order to buy a gun is not what I consider gun control.
banning guns or features or magazines is unconstitutional as it infringes on a persons ability to arm themselves.

no where in the constitution does it say that infringements mean infringements like what is trying to be argued.

unless he can come up with a different meaning to the phrase

"the Right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

gun control very much is unconstitutional. the fact that we do not have a judge pool that follows the constitution
does not in and of itself negate that it is unconstitutional.

so far jets only argument is to repeat himself constantly which doesn't actually prove anything.
He has ignored studies and other evidence posted. The only other argument he can make is to strawman and distort what is being said.

If fact in 1792 it was required that all men carry a military style weapon.
there were reason for the laws enacted that Jet has proposed.

1. The Northern states during the revolutionary war did not want to arm their enemies. many black people joined the ranks of the british army
as they were promising them freedom.
2. There were many white people in the north still loyal to the britians. it wasn't so much of a gun control law as it was
a military move to limit your enemies ability to get or own weapons.

what he fails to mention is by 1860 they had amended the law and black people were allowed to carry guns and fight.
if you look at the history of said laws they were more military strategy than gun control.

What is worse is that he quotes James Madison but doesn't understand what he is quoting.
He is actually quoting Madison's Favor for gun ownership.

ludin: you have to prove that all of the gun control going on in this country violates the constitution. All you've done is post quotes from 240 years ago, that do not appear in the second amendment - anywhere - and you'e said that I'm wrong. But you have not proven it.

I have clearly shown in 3 posts thus far that "gun Control" as such in the US DOES NOT violate the second amendment and the Supreme Court backs up my factual argument.

Prove my factual argument wrong.

End post # 4
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ludin: you have to prove that all of the gun control going on in this country violates the constitution. All you've done is post quotes from 240 years ago, that do not appear in the second amendment - anywhere - and you'e said that I'm wrong. But you have not proven it.

I have clearly shown in 3 posts thus far that "gun Control" as such in the US DOES NOT violate the second amendment and the Supreme Court backs up my factual argument.

Prove my factual argument wrong.

End post # 4

As Jet runs out of arguments to make since he simply cannot contradict what I have posted he comes along with the tried and true last stand argument
the denial fallacy.

While jet likes to quote Heller he leaves out this very important part of the decision.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

His previous post contained some off the wall blog for information which is irrelevant in this discussion.

Even courts have said that gun control laws go to far and violate the 2nd amendment.
more specifically weapons bans and magazine limitations. Unfortunately other courts have refused to read
the 2nd amendment along with the SCOTUS.

they allow infringements on something that should not be infringed.
again something that Jet has not addressed in his argument.

if the court would have allowed gun control laws like that to stand then they wouldn't have issued Heller,
nor would they have struck down the handgun ban in Chicago as well.

in 2013 the federal appeals court ruled that the Maryland weapons ban violated heller and that the lower court did not
use proper scrutiny in handling of the case.

Unforutantly they have not followed the same laws or rulings in CT and partially in NY where judges ignored previous SCOTUS rulings
in order to push their ideology, and have thereby violated the constitution as it is written. which even applies to the states.

in NY you can still own a semi-automatic rifle but they have limited and infringed on how many bullets you can shoot as if it matters.
in CT they have banned some guns outright which banned some guns and turned legal citizens into criminals for no reason other than
them upholding their 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

I have clearly proven that gun control measures that attempt to infringe on the peoples rights to bear arms has violated the 2nd amendment
and what it says. The fact that courts and judges cannot adhere to the 2nd amendment does not in any way negate what is stated.

Jet seems to think he can just claim something while ignoring everything that is posted to counter it. Unfortunately for him the evidence is clearly
against him and those that wish to ban guns for no reason.

Gun ownership is a measure of a free people and a free state.
All he can do is repeat himself while ignoring obvious counters including by the people that wrote the constitution that say the exact opposite.

continued below
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
continued from above

In fact they encouraged gun ownership and usage. Being armed had several vital important functions.

1. The ability to feed yourself.
2. The ability to defend yourself.
3. The ability to fight for your country.
4. The ability for sport and gamesmanship.

while these are only 4 reasons the most important reason was the ability to maintain a free people.
As I pointed out in my first post that he ignored gun control was one of the big reasons that started the revolutionary war.
The british government attempted to disarm the populace as a way to control them.

The American Revolution against British Gun Control
Administrative and Regulatory Law News (American Bar Association). Vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 2012

given this historic fact you can see why the Constitution says what it says.

The writers knew that the right to bear arms already exist since the dawn of time. Man
found a way to defend himself. If a man could defend himself and feed himself then he was a free man not
dependent on someone else. It was an existing right that they knew was the only way to maintain
balance between the federal government and the states. That an armed populace is a free populace.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Ludin’s entire argument hinges on this thesis: (any) “gun control infringes and violates the second amendment.”

What ludin has been leaving out of all of his posts, is credible refutation that: the Brady law, the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, 1934 National Rifle Act, sever state gun control laws (California law included by me), and 10 day waiting periods actually violate the second amendment.

The Heller decision struck down the handgun ban in DC, which was a good decision, as that attempt did indeed violate the second amendment, however as stated several times before, Justice Scalia determined, which has been backed up yet again, that the second amendment IS NOT and unlimited right and con control laws still stand. Ludin’s arguments have been unsuccessful in refuting all of that. He goes on and on with 224 year old arguments about the right to keep and bear, however said writings have nothing to do with the issues that are argued today, nor is there any mention that states governments and congress cannot create laws that regulate firearms, which is what gun control comes under legally. For instance, in US vs Miller; 307 U.S. 174 (1939), says:
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.

2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

So a restriction on certain types of guns, or registration or back ground checks do not in fact violate the second amendment. Different cases on the issue are brought to the court one at time. Some succeed some don’t. Those gun control measures that succeed are clearly NOT a violation and thus the sever states CAN and DO regulate firearms within the law. So gun control IS NOT a violation OR infringement of the right to keep and bear.

So ludin has clearly continued to fail to prove that my argument of this issue is not true.


End Post # 5
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Again jet has to make up my arguments (a logical fallacy by the way)instead of actually addressing the arguments and points that I have made so far.
Again let us look at the second amendment and what it is supposed to do.
"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."

Now the second amendment is included in what is described the Bill of Rights.
According to the founding fathers these rights have always existed but needed to be defined
In an official document as to limit the power of government over the people.

That was the intention of the 10 st ten amendments. It was to tell government and the people running it
What they could not do. One of those things that the government cannot do is infringe on the right of people to bear arms.

The fact that courts have disregarded the constitution for the own opinion is again of no consequence to the actual argument. That means the government attempting to restrict ammo, clips, guns, specific guns etc ...
According to how the wording of the constitution reads is unconstitutional.

The fact that jet cannot address what the constitution and the people that wrote it say proves that his position that gun control and gun bans are legal do not stand up.

He simply dismisses it and doesn't even argue against it. He just repeats himself over again.
What is worse is that he dismisses what the constitution says for someone's opinion of what it says.

The constitution clearly states that the right (an existing right) of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

No where in there does it say as long as it is this type of gun.
No where does it say as long as it is not a clip that holds this many bullets.

It clearly states that right right of the people (which means individuals) shall not be infringed.
So far jet has yet to argue against this in any way.

He has yet to actually support any argument he has made and the arguments he has cited have been shown to be incorrect or faulty at best.

He even acknowledges that gun control laws are unconstutional and other courts have ruled in similar fashion including the Supreme Court. If more courts would abide by the constitution instead of political ideology are freedoms would not be lost like they have been.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I am running a “deductive argument” based on factual source evidence.

Ludin’s arguments are based on conjecture and are in fact logical fallacies.

Everybody knows what the second amendment says. He’s posted it umpteen times in this debate and it hasn’t changed from the first time. He has completely ignore sourced evidence that shows that current gun control laws do not violate the second amendment except through his own opinion.
Here’s my opponent yet again:
Now the second amendment is included in what is described the Bill of Rights.
According to the founding fathers these rights have always existed but needed to be defined
In an official document as to limit the power of government over the people.

That was the intention of the 10 st ten amendments. It was to tell government and the people running it
What they could not do. One of those things that the government cannot do is infringe on the right of people to bear arms.

What we see there is indeed circular argumentation that just goes around and around and around in a circle and comes right back to the same place: not proving that any or my sources or my argument is wrong. He is working a logical fallacy against cold hard facts in evidence. Moreover, the right to keep and bear and the right to worship as one chooses did not exist in the world until the Bill of Rights said they did. Supposition doesn’t fly.

Saying that the courts have disregarded the constitution is, yet again, a fallacy argument based on his opinion alone: the Supreme Court and appeals courts rule on what they believe to be constitutional and things that are not get struck down as did the D.C handgun ban. But “gun control” as a fixture against crime still stands all over the country and has not been proven to be a violation. So once again: opinions don’t fly
I have continuously answered the question of the second amendment throughout this debate and have proven my points on it over and again, so beating the dead horse is no longer practical or good argumentation and serves no purpose.

And here goes my opponent yet again:
The constitution clearly states that the right (an existing right) of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
He keeps blindly stating his thesis over and over and over again as though it’s going to change the facts as I’ve presented them.[/quote]
When the second amendment was written, there were only about three or four types of guns (give or take) used by the colonists and the militias. Guns were very expensive in those days. How many different combat weapons around the world are there today? A thousand or more? How many of those combat weapons have been used by mass killers and cartel gangs? Blacks were denied the right to carry, just like the Irish Catholic was denied the right to carry, just like a lot of colonists were denied the right to carry; because government was trying to prevent insurrections. Today’s gun control measures however are all about helping to stop viciously armed criminal activity, and ludin has not presented one iota of evidence to show that that is not true.

End post # 6
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am running a “deductive argument” based on factual source evidence.

Ludin’s arguments are based on conjecture and are in fact logical fallacies.

Everybody knows what the second amendment says. He’s posted it umpteen times in this debate and it hasn’t changed from the first time. He has completely ignore sourced evidence that shows that current gun control laws do not violate the second amendment except through his own opinion.
Here again we can not see that jet can no longer make his argument so instead of actual defending his position he has to just make up arguments that he invents things.
So far he has yet to actually deal with an actual argument that has been present because he can't. all he can do is repeat himself.

As for source material I am posting the ultimate source material in this debate which is the constitution. That is the only source material that matters. Anything else is subjective opinion of people.
The job of the people that he keeps quoting is to uphold and protect the constitution. They do not have the ability or the power to re-write the constitution based on their opinion. The only
power to change the constitution lies with the congress and the states to ratify. So far there has been no ratification of the 2nd amendment.

What we see there is indeed circular argumentation that just goes around and around and around in a circle and comes right back to the same place: not proving that any or my sources or my argument is wrong. He is working a logical fallacy against cold hard facts in evidence. Moreover, the right to keep and bear and the right to worship as one chooses did not exist in the world until the Bill of Rights said they did. Supposition doesn’t fly.

No circular argument at all. The constitution is the founding source for all constitutional argument. The other source would be the people that wrote the constitution.
As I have posted on them they firmly believe that ever citizens should be armed and should be equipped. That the government didn't have the power to limit
the people and their ability to carry arms.

His argument is basically saying that the constitution is wrong and what a judge 200 years after the fact says is correct. This is the opposite way the constitution and the judicial system works.
Infringed does not mean infringed.

I will post the definition of infringement again since he has ignored it all along.

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

so as we can see by the words shall not be infringed it means that the government canot limit or undermine or encroach on the right of people to bear arms.
Just as the people that wrote the constitution inplied

Saying that the courts have disregarded the constitution is, yet again, a fallacy argument based on his opinion alone: the Supreme Court and appeals courts rule on what they believe to be constitutional and things that are not get struck down as did the D.C handgun ban. But “gun control” as a fixture against crime still stands all over the country and has not been proven to be a violation. So once again: opinions don’t fly
I have continuously answered the question of the second amendment throughout this debate and have proven my points on it over and again, so beating the dead horse is no longer practical or good argumentation and serves no purpose.

Here we see where he clearly does not understand the role of the court. This is why we have lost so much freedom in this country is due to judges stepping outside their bounds.
Their job is not to rule on what they believe to be constitutional. their job is specifically to uphold the constitution and defend the constitution. They do not have the power to change
the constitution or alter the meaning of the constitution unlike what some judges and people think.

"Gun Control" fixture as a fixture against crime fails all over the place. Why? Criminals simply do not care about his gun control laws. That is what makes them criminals.
all gun control laws do is unconstitutional limit law abiding citizens their rights.

continued below
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
continued from above

Yes he quotes his opinion and the opinion of judges while ignoring what the constitution says. It is easy to try and make an argument while ignoring it completely.
As for beating a dead horse that is basically his argument since again he just repeats himself ad nauseam without actually arguing anything else.

And here goes my opponent yet again: He keeps blindly stating his thesis over and over and over again as though it’s going to change the facts as I’ve presented them.
When the second amendment was written, there were only about three or four types of guns (give or take) used by the colonists and the militias. Guns were very expensive in those days. How many different combat weapons around the world are there today? A thousand or more? How many of those combat weapons have been used by mass killers and cartel gangs? Blacks were denied the right to carry, just like the Irish Catholic was denied the right to carry, just like a lot of colonists were denied the right to carry; because government was trying to prevent insurrections. Today’s gun control measures however are all about helping to stop viciously armed criminal activity, and ludin has not presented one iota of evidence to show that that is not true.
[/QUOTE]

So far Jet has only stated opinion not facts there is a difference. The only fact that has been stated are what the 2nd amendment says and what the authors of that amendment say.
anything outside of that is just opinion.

Actually he is wrong there were pistols, rifles, knives, cannons, bows, an assortment of arms that people could use and the 2nd amendment protected them all. There is no limit to what weapon the 2nd amendment
alluded to and if he thinks it limits what weapon I would ask him to quote in the 2nd amendment where that limit is.

The 2nd amendment does put a limit on something but it isn't the people it is the government.

to answer his question at least in the US mass shooting account for exactly 1% of the murders involving shootings.
as I posted in another link that was posted a study by the CDC said that semi-automatic rifles where not an issue.

Blacks were denied a right to carry due to military move. Colonists again was a military move. So these arguments have already been dealt with and pretty much destroyed.
Blacks were able to carry and fight in the civil war.

Today's gun control measures do little to stop armed criminal activity as criminals buy guns illegally. The only thing that gun control laws do is stop law abiding citizens from
exercising their existing rights which is unconstitutional since those rights cannot be infringed.

Gun controls actually make people less safe as criminals do not care.
DC and Chigaco had the strictest gun control laws in the country.

Their violent crime rates were through the roof. When the judges actually followed the constitution and said that banning CC permits was unconstitutional, and ruled in the favor of heller.
Chicago crime rate drops as concealed carry gun permit applications surge - Washington Times

Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.

Disarming law abiding citizens only allows for more crime. There is no constitutional basis for it at all.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
If there was any truth to what my opponent argues the Supreme Court would strike down every single gun control law that attempts to pass in this country, but that has certainly not been the case and gun control laws stand as legal enforcements. Over and over again we have seen the second amendment is not the end all for state and national legislation and people in this country still very much enjoy gun ownership and use.
It is the job of courts to pay very close attention to the constitution in order to measure the legality of suits that come before it. Where they are a violation, as in Heller, such attempts are struck down, where they are legal as in the myriad of gun control laws on the books today, many of which I have used as validations of my argument, still stand: again, ludin’s opinion does not prove anything with respect to legal gun control. From 1833 on up “legal gun control” has been a staple of assistance in crime prevention, and even the NRA agrees with background checks, and THAT itself is gun control.
When I spoke about the existent guns in colonial times, I said there were about three or four different types of guns. Ludin’s “pistols, knives, cannons, bows, an assortment of arms " are not, save pistols and cannons, guns. Cannons were the very first guns, made for military assaultive purposes AND WERE in the number I was taking about. I didn't think it necessary to point out the difference between a gun and a knife or crossbow or spear... So again, my opponent’s opinions are way off the mark.

Again, the crux of my opponent’s argument:
Disarming law abiding citizens only allows for more crime. There is no constitutional basis for it at all.
Where have American citizens been disarmed? Let’s define the term “disarm”:

dis•arm

disˈärm/

verb

1. Take a weapon or weapons away from (a person, force, or country).
“guerrillas had completely disarmed and demobilized their forces”
synonyms: demilitarize, demobilize

Where has the federal or state government, except in the cases of criminal prosecution, used a gun control law to disarm law abiding citizens?
Gun control in this country has a long legal history that does NOT violate the second amendment.
 
Last edited:

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If there was any truth to what my opponent argues the Supreme Court would strike down every single gun control law that attempts to pass in this country, but that has certainly not been the case and gun control laws stand as legal enforcements. Over and over again we have seen the second amendment is not the end all for state and national legislation and people in this country still very much enjoy gun ownership and use.

Again Jet is under the opinion that courts and judges are actually following the constitution. The fact is they are not following the constitution otherwise we would see these laws struck down.
He claims that the 2nd amendment is not the end all be all however that is exactly what the 2nd amendment is the end all be all. It is the constitution that laws must stand up against.

It is the job of courts to pay very close attention to the constitution in order to measure the legality of suits that come before it. Where they are a violation, as in Heller, such attempts are struck down, where they are legal as in the myriad of gun control laws on the books today, many of which I have used as validations of my argument, still stand: again, ludin’s opinion does not prove anything with respect to legal gun control. From 1833 on up “legal gun control” has been a staple of assistance in crime prevention, and even the NRA agrees with background checks, and THAT itself is gun control.

You cans here that he quotes my opinion but I am not quoting an opinion I am quoting the constitution and what the constitution says. I have also backed this up by what the founding fathers who wrote the constitution said.
Actually it hasn't. You seem most crime rates drop as I posted when law abiding citizens are able to arm themselves against criminals. Gun control laws have no affect on criminals at all.
The fact that they are legal only means that courts are not following or upholding the constitution. It says nothing to the fact that they should have been struck down.

When I spoke about the existent guns in colonial times, I said there were about three or four different types of guns. Ludin’s “pistols, knives, cannons, bows, an assortment of arms " are not, save pistols and cannons, guns. Cannons were the very first guns, made for military assaultive purposes AND WERE in the number I was taking about. I didn't think it necessary to point out the difference between a gun and a knife or crossbow or spear... so again, my opponent’s opinions are way off the mark.

This is where Jet doesn't understand the word arms. arms is any weapon that a person could wield at any given time. He commits the next fallacy in thinking that the 2nd amendment mentions any kind of limitations on people
It doesn't matter if there was 1 gun or 10. It doesn't matter if there was 1 knife or 10. The fact is that the 2nd amendment doesn't limit the people's ability to bear arms. The 2nd amendment prevents the government from
not allowing people to bear arms as they see fit. He has it backwards. There isn't a need to point out differences as they are all considered arms.

Again, the crux of my opponent’s argument:
Where have American citizens been disarmed? Let’s define the term “disarm”:

As we can see instead of actually address my arguments he simply makes them up or distorts what was posted. Yet another strawman
in a line of them.

Where has the federal or state government, except in the cases of criminal prosecution, used a gun control law to disarm law abiding citizens?
Gun control in this country has a long legal history that does NOT violate the second amendment.

The attempt to ban semi-automatic rifles is an attempt to disarm legal law abiding citizens from carrying out their constitutional rights.
 

jet57

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
31,057
Reaction score
3,969
Location
not here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Again, my opponent cannot prove my argument is incorrect or that legal gun control laws violate the second amendment.

Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Bill of Rights, Amendment 1, Dec 15 1791


a•bridge

əˈbrij/

verb

past tense: abridged; past participle: abridged
1. shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.
"the cassettes have been abridged from the original stories"

synonyms: shorten, cut, cut short, cut down, curtail, truncate, trim, crop, clip, pare down, prune;More


2. LAW
curtail (rights or privileges).


Yet we have both libel and slanders laws wherein an individual or group can be convicted of using speech to intentionally injure another person or group.

Defamation law, for as long as it has been in existence in the United States, has had to walk a fine line between the right to freedom of speech and the right of a person to avoid defamation. On one hand, people should be free to talk about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something mean, but true, about someone else. On the other hand, people have a right to not have false statements made that will damage their reputation. Discourse is essential to a free society, and the more open and honest the discourse, the better for society.

Defamation Law: The Basics - FindLaw

And like gun control laws, freedom of speech is legally amended to protect the welfare of the whole. So we have here two cases of the very same context, wherein the constitution is not violated.

So just like the assault weapons ban of 1994 and other such gun control measures, there is no violation of the second amendment.

End Post # 8
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom