• 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!

What arms?

TurtleDude said:
you see my line of what is obviously protected is based on the concept of estoppel and relies on the "expertise" of the very government units that want to regulate arms
Click to expand...

But isn't regulating arms at the core of being unconstitutional via the 2nd amendment?

Not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to draw a more definitive line that seems sooooo blurry and arbitrary.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Well, whenever someone disagrees with me, I would attempt to explain my position: Generally, any weapon like Artillery is not an army, it's a piece of ordinance. Or explosives are not arms, nor are nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.

If that doesn't work, I start bashing heads.
Click to expand...

The cold war was a nuclear ARMS race though. To me it looks like you'd take the route of trying to redefine what "arms" are and are not.
 
poweRob said:
But isn't regulating arms at the core of being unconstitutional via the 2nd amendment?

Not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to draw a more definitive line that seems sooooo blurry and arbitrary.
Click to expand...

My line is precise, bright and easily understandable. I don't feel a need to deal with say belt fed machine guns until all the stuff that should be legal for all honest citizens

clearly WMDs can be banned since their use would implicate clear interstate implications and are not individually useful
 
poweRob said:
The cold war was a nuclear ARMS race though. To me it looks like you'd take the route of trying to redefine what "arms" are and are not.
Click to expand...

that is not the same use of arms that the founders envisioned to them arms were individual weapons such as dirks, swords, lances, pistols, maces, poleaxes, sabers, rifles, muskets and of course, the deadly tomahawk!
 
poweRob said:
The cold war was a nuclear ARMS race though. To me it looks like you'd take the route of trying to redefine what "arms" are and are not.
Click to expand...

Probably.

We should hang out more.
 
poweRob said:
The premise of the thread was to lay out where you draw the line while the most important aspect being how does the line that you draw not break this constitutionality?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed​
Click to expand...


SCOTUS has an established standard for fundamental rights: Strict Scrutiny.


Restrictions to fundamental rights must be

A societal necessity, not merely a preference...
Narrowly construed
least restrictive means possible


In Heller, SCOTUS established that weapons in common use that are not extraordinary and inherently dangerous (ie explosives) are not to be banned. That covers most firearms certainly.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
My line is precise, bright and easily understandable. I don't feel a need to deal with say belt fed machine guns until all the stuff that should be legal for all honest citizens

clearly WMDs can be banned since their use would implicate clear interstate implications and are not individually useful
Click to expand...

perhaps. But by the 2nd amendment, I have a right to own them regardless.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is not the same use of arms that the founders envisioned to them arms were individual weapons such as dirks, swords, lances, pistols, maces, poleaxes, sabers, rifles, muskets and of course, the deadly tomahawk!
Click to expand...

That's the angle lefty's take in the argument. The founders did not envision semi and fully automatic weapons with 30 round clips. So how is it that the 2nd amendment can ban what you want but not what I want when the founders didn't envision either?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Probably.

We should hang out more.
Click to expand...

lol...

It's just such a blurry and undefined line by either side of the political spectrum. Yet it is an extremely powerful club. I think such a powerful tool as the 2nd Amendment to the constitution should be extremely well defined and not so loose.
 
poweRob said:
That's the angle lefty's take in the argument. The founders did not envision semi and fully automatic weapons with 30 round clips. So how is it that the 2nd amendment can ban what you want but not what I want when the founders didn't envision either?
Click to expand...

you are starting to fail

the second amendment was about citizens having the same individual weapon as a regular or a well trained militia member.
 
Goshin said:
SCOTUS has an established standard for fundamental rights: Strict Scrutiny.


Restrictions to fundamental rights must be

A societal necessity, not merely a preference...
Narrowly construed
least restrictive means possible


In Heller, SCOTUS established that weapons in common use that are not extraordinary and inherently dangerous (ie explosives) are not to be banned. That covers most firearms certainly.
Click to expand...

Common use is flexible and can change with time. If it became common to make mine fields then it is common. Pretend you are in front of the SCOTUS and have to lay out why I can't have grenade launchers... you fighting against the 2nd amendment. How could you do that without infringing on my rights?
 
TurtleDude said:
you are starting to fail

the second amendment was about citizens having the same individual weapon as a regular or a well trained militia member.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that in the constitution. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It did not define what arms.

In here we are trying to define arms... the constitution did not.
 
poweRob said:
It doesn't say that in the constitution. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It did not define what arms.

In here we are trying to define arms... the constitution did not.
Click to expand...

well men of education back then knew what arms meant.
 
poweRob said:
lol...

It's just such a blurry and undefined line by either side of the political spectrum. Yet it is an extremely powerful club. I think such a powerful tool as the 2nd Amendment to the constitution should be extremely well defined and not so loose.
Click to expand...

You should just give me all the guns and I'll sort it out.
 
poweRob said:
That's the angle lefty's take in the argument. The founders did not envision semi and fully automatic weapons with 30 round clips. So how is it that the 2nd amendment can ban what you want but not what I want when the founders didn't envision either?
Click to expand...

The only thing that the second Amendment can [and does] ban is the government from preventing the people from owning firearms. The basic assumption was that people would, should they choose, be armed with basic and readily available firearms. It was also assumed that those same people would form militias which might own certain ordinance not readily accessible to an individual but simple enough for small groups to obtain.

For all intents there shouldn't be any restriction on (for example) the people of Tucson to band together to purchase a B-2. What DOES prevent that from happening is simple economics. It would be ridiculous for Tucson to come up with a few billion dollars for such a thing even if it was available "off the shelf". To fund the R&D necessary to come up with it and THEN buy it is even more ridiculous....at least as ridiculous as the arguments of those who choose to head down this path.
 
poweRob said:
That's the angle lefty's take in the argument. The founders did not envision semi and fully automatic weapons with 30 round clips. So how is it that the 2nd amendment can ban what you want but not what I want when the founders didn't envision either?
Click to expand...

The founders did envision many things, thus included the ability to amend the constitution. What most no longer see is the need to do so, as they seem to think if things are popular or important then they should simply trump the constitution. It took constitutional action to ban (and restore) the recreational drug alcohol, yet no such action to ban heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana or any number of other popular substitutes. There is no mention of education as a federal constitutional power, yet the founders were very well aware of schools - education is now the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal deaprtment.
 
poweRob said:
What did it mean back then that it doesn't today?
Click to expand...

mental masturbation loses its thrill rather quickly. I have said what it means and you can take it or leave it
 
Lutherf said:
The only thing that the second Amendment can [and does] ban is the government from preventing the people from owning firearms. The basic assumption was that people would, should they choose, be armed with basic and readily available firearms. It was also assumed that those same people would form militias which might own certain ordinance not readily accessible to an individual but simple enough for small groups to obtain.

For all intents there shouldn't be any restriction on (for example) the people of Tucson to band together to purchase a B-2. What DOES prevent that from happening is simple economics. It would be ridiculous for Tucson to come up with a few billion dollars for such a thing even if it was available "off the shelf". To fund the R&D necessary to come up with it and THEN buy it is even more ridiculous....at least as ridiculous as the arguments of those who choose to head down this path.
Click to expand...

I'm arguing simple law. Law is precludes basic assumptions as it's rule. If that were the case then we could not live by the rule of law because then laws would be too arbitrary. What seems common sense to you does not look to be common sense to another. Which is why laws cannot be as subjective as you are assuming them to be. The 2nd amendment has to be clarified. Not just assumed because laws have to be a stable and reliable... not a moving and ever-changing.
 
TurtleDude said:
mental masturbation loses its thrill rather quickly. I have said what it means and you can take it or leave it
Click to expand...

Seriously though Turtle... People back then were allowed all the weapons they wished as long as they could afford it. Why not today?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The founders did envision many things, thus included the ability to amend the constitution. What most no longer see is the need to do so, as they seem to think if things are popular or important then they should simply trump the constitution. It took constitutional action to ban (and restore) the recreational drug alcohol, yet no such action to ban heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana or any number of other popular substitutes. There is no mention of education as a federal constitutional power, yet the founders were very well aware of schools - education is now the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal deaprtment.
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm just trying to see if those on right and are avid supporters of the 2nd Amendment agree with me on the left that the 2nd amendment needs to be clarified and not just left to assumptions and the whimsy of what people arbitrarily want from day to day as times change.
 
poweRob said:
Seriously though Turtle... People back then were allowed all the weapons they wished as long as they could afford it. Why not today?
Click to expand...

because of FDR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom