• 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 does it mean to INFRINGE upon the Right to Keep and Bear arms

What does it mean to INFRINGE on the RKBA

  • any substantive interference with the right

    Votes: 37 52.1%

  • Only major interferences-like a ban on handguns

    Votes: 8 11.3%

  • any interference whatsoever-such as showing an ID

    Votes: 14 19.7%

  • Only a complete ban on owning any firearm

    Votes: 3 4.2%

  • The Second Amendment doesn't apply to individuals

    Votes: 4 5.6%

  • Other-explain

    Votes: 5 7.0%
  • Total voters
    71
scatt said:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

This means no right for the people to keep and bear arms? Only gun-grabbers without a brain, but perhaps a authoritarian cause, believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is even current practice in our republic.

Only well regulated Militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment; and, civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated, are subject to paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller.
 
And of course the people (everyone) who have a "right" to keep and bear arms.
 
scatt said:
And of course the people (everyone) who have a "right" to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the express Terms; Acquire and Possess, denoting rights in private property.

Only well regulated Militias may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of any rights in private property.
 
Except for the people (militia) may not be infringed.
 
danielpalos said:
Rights in private property are secured in State Constitutions with the express Terms; Acquire and Possess, denoting rights in private property.

Only well regulated Militias may not be Infringed in the keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union, regardless of any rights in private property.
Click to expand...

but you are completely wrong.

if that is true, then the Lautenberg amendment to the 68 GCA would not be able to disarm soldiers, state police and national guardsmen

since it can, your argument completely fails. You obviously were not aware of the jurisprudence on this matter where members of the armed forces and national guard argued what you have stated only to have that argument rejected

your argument, therefore, is specious
 
TurtleDude said:
but you are completely wrong.

if that is true, then the Lautenberg amendment to the 68 GCA would not be able to disarm soldiers, state police and national guardsmen

since it can, your argument completely fails. You obviously were not aware of the jurisprudence on this matter where members of the armed forces and national guard argued what you have stated only to have that argument rejected

your argument, therefore, is specious
Click to expand...

no; simply because it is current practice in our republic.
 

You mean the people as a whole, pal?
 
All people are the militia.

Huuuur, any questions?
 
danielpalos said:
by what? do well regulated militias have to obey State laws regarding Arms, enacted for civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with Militia service, well regulated?
Click to expand...

more specious nonsense. When you figure out what the Second Amendment really deals with then get back to me.

the Second Amendment-as WRITTEN and as INTENDED-was to prevent the FEDERAL government from interfering with the natural right of CITIZENS to keep and bear arms. now that Right can be abrogated by due process of law upon say a felony conviction.

Your schtick apparently is that of a hard core gun banner who wants to nuance the language of the Second Amendment in order to pretend that gun bans and other schemes of your party do not violate the second amendment

IT fails
 
danielpalos said:
Nope; only well regulated militias are Specifically Enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State; thus, it must be that subset of the People. Any questions?
Click to expand...

Yeah that's stupid because using your analysis, no one would have any RKBA until they had answered the call up, joined the militia and the militia had elected officers and set off on a mission. That defeats the entire concept of people being skilled in arms and having arms to bring to the muster
 
TurtleDude said:
Some claim that the government may engage in all sorts of encroachments of our rights short of an outright ban on every firearm. I hold that any substantive interference with your ability to keep and bear (acquire and possess) arms is an infringement. How do you all feel
Click to expand...

i said "Only major interferences like a ban on handguns" because as much as i agree with option one, if criminals were given free reign to buy all the guns they wanted, how many more murders would happen. And kids under 18 are still american citizens, so how many more school shootings would we have if they were given free reign to buy guns at any time.

You see although we may not like all of the new laws and regulation methods they are putting in place, a complete overhaul of all of the laws would get rid of the ones that actually do save lives on a day to day basis.
 
JJB3333 said:
i said "Only major interferences like a ban on handguns" because as much as i agree with option one, if criminals were given free reign to buy all the guns they wanted, how many more murders would happen. And kids under 18 are still american citizens, so how many more school shootings would we have if they were given free reign to buy guns at any time.

You see although we may not like all of the new laws and regulation methods they are putting in place, a complete overhaul of all of the laws would get rid of the ones that actually do save lives on a day to day basis.
Click to expand...

actually the constitution acknowledges that certain rights can be removed through due process of law upon conviction of crimes.

That is why I support substantive restrictions as my choice. showing an ID is not a substantive restriction. Banning 15 round magazines is
 
They did indeed enumerate the "right" of the people to keep and bear arms.
 
TurtleDude said:
more specious nonsense. When you figure out what the Second Amendment really deals with then get back to me.

the Second Amendment-as WRITTEN and as INTENDED-was to prevent the FEDERAL government from interfering with the natural right of CITIZENS to keep and bear arms. now that Right can be abrogated by due process of law upon say a felony conviction.

Your schtick apparently is that of a hard core gun banner who wants to nuance the language of the Second Amendment in order to pretend that gun bans and other schemes of your party do not violate the second amendment

IT fails
Click to expand...

You are missing the point about our Second Amendment; it was written as intended and says what it means. Why even include the first clause if what they really meant was: The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed?
 
TurtleDude said:
Yeah that's stupid because using your analysis, no one would have any RKBA until they had answered the call up, joined the militia and the militia had elected officers and set off on a mission. That defeats the entire concept of people being skilled in arms and having arms to bring to the muster
Click to expand...

Simply appealing to ignorance isn't very bright. Rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. Any questions?
 
danielpalos said:
Why even include the first clause if what they really meant was: The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed?
Click to expand...

Because the founders saw a well armed populace as the way to keep tyranny of the state down.
 
All people because of the admission by the founders that a well armed populace keeps tyranny of the state down.
 
danielpalos said:
You are missing the point about our Second Amendment; it was written as intended and says what it means. Why even include the first clause if what they really meant was: The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be Infringed?
Click to expand...

you like many gun banners who want to evaporate the recognition of a natural right, pretend the first clause is a necessary one rather than a sufficient one
 
danielpalos said:
Simply appealing to ignorance isn't very bright. Rights in private property are already secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process. Any questions?
Click to expand...

wrong again, and that didn't take place until the 14th amendment. Try again

I am curious, does your really esoteric and unfounded position come from having actually studied and written on constitutional law? or is it some new attempt to limit our rights floated by the Brady Organization or the VPC or the DNC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom