• 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
danielpalos said:
in case you missed it; you are the one resorting to fallacy, as a result. why not brush up on our federal form of government, instead of simply pleading, so specially.
Click to expand...

federal form of government?..........you have no clue about what your reality talking about............what your really TRYING TO SAY IS.... FEDERALISM.
 
ernst barkmann said:
federal form of government?..........you have no clue about what your reality talking about............what your really TRYING TO SAY IS.... FEDERALISM.
Click to expand...

yes, our form of federalism and federal form of government. why are simple concepts so difficult for you? don't have Cause or a Clue?
 
danielpalos said:
yes, our form of federalism and federal form of government. Why are simple concepts so difficult for you? Don't have cause or a clue?
Click to expand...

its you my friend you is lost when it comes to government, because you can only keep saying the same thing over and over.

Read the federalist papers, and learn ..please!
 
ernst barkmann said:
its you my friend you is lost when it comes to government, because you can only keep saying the same thing over and over.

Read the federalist papers, and learn ..please!
Click to expand...

It is only because appeals to ignorance of our own laws is not a privilege and immunity for any civil Person in our republic. It is you who fails to understand the meaning of the words in our supreme law of the land.
 
danielpalos said:
it is only because appeals to ignorance of our own laws is not a privilege and immunity for any civil person in our republic. It is you who fails to understand the meaning of the words in our supreme law of the land.
Click to expand...

you can only repeat the same thingS over and over.......

and never answer any questions.
 
Even the..


copyright-troll.jpg


has the right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps he really is a member of a militia and not just a civil person.
 
danielpalos said:
Either you have a valid rebuttal or you don't; troll.

Only the People who are a well regulated Militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

You failed English composition class didn't you? Granted the 2nd amendment was written awhile ago, however the English language has not changed so significantly as to change the meaning of the sentence which composes the 2nd amendment. The first part of the sentence is a statement, in this particular case stating a reason for the second part of the sentence, which states an action, the keeping and bearing of arms shall not be infringed. If the keeping of arms were in fact limited then to militia, then the action statement would have included the term militia instead of people.
 
PirateMk1 said:
You failed English composition class didn't you? Granted the 2nd amendment was written awhile ago, however the English language has not changed so significantly as to change the meaning of the sentence which composes the 2nd amendment. The first part of the sentence is a statement, in this particular case stating a reason for the second part of the sentence, which states an action, the keeping and bearing of arms shall not be infringed. If the keeping of arms were in fact limited then to militia, then the action statement would have included the term militia instead of people.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is limited to the Militia of the United States, and not only that, but a well regulated Militia of the People is what is expressly enumerated in our Second Amendment.
 
danielpalos said:
why not post your actual argument instead of merely claim you have one?
Click to expand...


I have asked you questions, about our federal government, and all you have done is regurgitate state power to me, never answering what I have asked you.

find someone who has been part of this thread who disagrees with me............good luck!
 
ernst barkmann said:
I have asked you questions, about our federal government, and all you have done is regurgitate state power to me, never answering what I have asked you.

find someone who has been part of this thread who disagrees with me............good luck!
Click to expand...

thank you for not having an actual argument; all of those of your point of view resort to similar fallacies.
 
ernst barkmann said:
\

actual argument?... I have given you many and still you never answer.......regurgitation is your message of nothing.
Click to expand...

simply claiming that without providing your actual argument to support your contention, is usually considered a fallacy. why not provide your actual argument instead of only so much fallacy?
 
Why do we need the expense of a War on Crime, if what is necessary to the security of a free State is expressly declared in our Second Amendment.
 
in a "FREE STATE" Guns should have no laws what so ever to prevent or hinder the ability to buy a weapon as well as in a "FREE STATE" Federal income tax can not be enforced. But again the is in a "FREE STATE" is it wrong for a slave to WANT to be a slave to a master? No it isnt if that is what he want (the slave) people who want to enforce gun laws as well as income taxes, would trade there freedom for protection the government provides (+ totalitarianism) along with Welfare or 3 hots and a cot. Point being is we are moving away from freedom so expect gun laws to tighten and the infringement of weapons to continue to throttle around our necks. The only thing worse then being a slave is thinking you are free when you truly are a slave. Anything in America that can be regulated is... which is the definition of totalitarianism
 
A well regulated Militia of the People and citizenry of that free State, is what is expressly declared as necessary to the security of it.
 
danielpalos said:
A well regulated Militia of the People and citizenry of that free State, is what is expressly declared as necessary to the security of it.
Click to expand...

yeah so you say but that does nothing to advance this conversation. the second amendment protects the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms whether they are in the militia or not
 
danielpalos said:
No, it doesn't as paragraph (2) explicitly, explains.
Click to expand...

well you are lying because the Heller case determined that the 2A didn't allow bans of handguns

and the Lautenberg amendment disarmed guardsmen as quickly as those not in the militia

we get it-you are here to bait and pretend you have some new take on the 2A when in reality all you are doing is displaying idiotic and ignorant posts on a topic you obviously have no serious educational background in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom