Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Firearm Ownership in America

Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 3:27:29 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created a founding document which enumerated federal powers. All other powers were reserved to the respective states and the people. Why, then, did they insist soon after, when the first 10 amendments to the constitution were ratified, that the right to keep and bear arms by the people be enumerated and specifically protected. Without this 2nd amendment protection, the right to keep and bear arms was not enumerated as a federal power, meaning there was no federal jurisdiction.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 2:24:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 3:27:29 AM, Throwback wrote:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created a founding document which enumerated federal powers. All other powers were reserved to the respective states and the people. Why, then, did they insist soon after, when the first 10 amendments to the constitution were ratified, that the right to keep and bear arms by the people be enumerated and specifically protected. Without this 2nd amendment protection, the right to keep and bear arms was not enumerated as a federal power, meaning there was no federal jurisdiction.

They probably felt that words like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be unambiguous.

Its not a federal power, its a right enumerated to the people, and like all rights enumerated to the people, its protected (or at least should be) at all levels of government. 'Jurisdiction' not needed.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 2:32:22 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 2:24:29 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:27:29 AM, Throwback wrote:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created a founding document which enumerated federal powers. All other powers were reserved to the respective states and the people. Why, then, did they insist soon after, when the first 10 amendments to the constitution were ratified, that the right to keep and bear arms by the people be enumerated and specifically protected. Without this 2nd amendment protection, the right to keep and bear arms was not enumerated as a federal power, meaning there was no federal jurisdiction.

They probably felt that words like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be unambiguous.

Its not a federal power, its a right enumerated to the people, and like all rights enumerated to the people, its protected (or at least should be) at all levels of government. 'Jurisdiction' not needed.

I don't think I was clear. I apologize. Prior to the first ten amendments, the Constitution itself was sufficient to keep the federal government from disarming the citizens, as it was outside their scope of authority to even attempt it. My question was aimed at why they felt that right, among others, was so important that although inviolable under the constitution, the amendment was added later under the first U.S. Congress. It only punctuated an undeniable right already granted by the constitution.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 4:02:03 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 2:32:22 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:24:29 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:27:29 AM, Throwback wrote:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created a founding document which enumerated federal powers. All other powers were reserved to the respective states and the people. Why, then, did they insist soon after, when the first 10 amendments to the constitution were ratified, that the right to keep and bear arms by the people be enumerated and specifically protected. Without this 2nd amendment protection, the right to keep and bear arms was not enumerated as a federal power, meaning there was no federal jurisdiction.

They probably felt that words like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be unambiguous.

Its not a federal power, its a right enumerated to the people, and like all rights enumerated to the people, its protected (or at least should be) at all levels of government. 'Jurisdiction' not needed.

I don't think I was clear. I apologize. Prior to the first ten amendments, the Constitution itself was sufficient to keep the federal government from disarming the citizens, as it was outside their scope of authority to even attempt it. My question was aimed at why they felt that right, among others, was so important that although inviolable under the constitution, the amendment was added later under the first U.S. Congress. It only punctuated an undeniable right already granted by the constitution.

If it hadn't been there, the fourteenth amendment would have given the federal government that power.

The Bill of Rights was put in so that, even were the government to expand its power, there were certain sacred things that they could never touch.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2016 4:14:07 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 4:02:03 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:32:22 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:24:29 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:27:29 AM, Throwback wrote:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created a founding document which enumerated federal powers. All other powers were reserved to the respective states and the people. Why, then, did they insist soon after, when the first 10 amendments to the constitution were ratified, that the right to keep and bear arms by the people be enumerated and specifically protected. Without this 2nd amendment protection, the right to keep and bear arms was not enumerated as a federal power, meaning there was no federal jurisdiction.

They probably felt that words like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be unambiguous.

Its not a federal power, its a right enumerated to the people, and like all rights enumerated to the people, its protected (or at least should be) at all levels of government. 'Jurisdiction' not needed.

I don't think I was clear. I apologize. Prior to the first ten amendments, the Constitution itself was sufficient to keep the federal government from disarming the citizens, as it was outside their scope of authority to even attempt it. My question was aimed at why they felt that right, among others, was so important that although inviolable under the constitution, the amendment was added later under the first U.S. Congress. It only punctuated an undeniable right already granted by the constitution.

If it hadn't been there, the fourteenth amendment would have given the federal government that power.

The Bill of Rights was put in so that, even were the government to expand its power, there were certain sacred things that they could never touch.

I agree. The constitution was only ratified "as is" with the promise amendments to protect further rights would be considered in the first Congress. At the time, a promise meant you intended to do the thing promise; thus what became the bill of rights was passed. Although all rights of the federal government were listed to the exclusion of all others, some were fearful of overreach; others were fearful the enumeration of specific rights would eventually come to be misunderstood of an enumeration of citizen rights, to the exclusion of all others. I believe both were right.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 9:26:10 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/11/2016 4:14:07 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:02:03 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:32:22 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:24:29 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:27:29 AM, Throwback wrote:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created a founding document which enumerated federal powers. All other powers were reserved to the respective states and the people. Why, then, did they insist soon after, when the first 10 amendments to the constitution were ratified, that the right to keep and bear arms by the people be enumerated and specifically protected. Without this 2nd amendment protection, the right to keep and bear arms was not enumerated as a federal power, meaning there was no federal jurisdiction.

They probably felt that words like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be unambiguous.

Its not a federal power, its a right enumerated to the people, and like all rights enumerated to the people, its protected (or at least should be) at all levels of government. 'Jurisdiction' not needed.

I don't think I was clear. I apologize. Prior to the first ten amendments, the Constitution itself was sufficient to keep the federal government from disarming the citizens, as it was outside their scope of authority to even attempt it. My question was aimed at why they felt that right, among others, was so important that although inviolable under the constitution, the amendment was added later under the first U.S. Congress. It only punctuated an undeniable right already granted by the constitution.

If it hadn't been there, the fourteenth amendment would have given the federal government that power.

The Bill of Rights was put in so that, even were the government to expand its power, there were certain sacred things that they could never touch.

I agree. The constitution was only ratified "as is" with the promise amendments to protect further rights would be considered in the first Congress. At the time, a promise meant you intended to do the thing promise; thus what became the bill of rights was passed. Although all rights of the federal government were listed to the exclusion of all others, some were fearful of overreach; others were fearful the enumeration of specific rights would eventually come to be misunderstood of an enumeration of citizen rights, to the exclusion of all others. I believe both were right.

I agree that it was added as a second layer of protection, a backup.

Thankfully so, as there are many things the government does that the constitution does not authorize. Unless you completely twist the meanings into something else, which is what has been done.

The constitution was written to tell the government what it could do, it outlined their authority. Now it's more usually used to argue what the government cannot do after they have done it.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2016 11:47:52 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/19/2016 9:26:10 AM, Heterodox wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:14:07 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/11/2016 4:02:03 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:32:22 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/11/2016 2:24:29 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/11/2016 3:27:29 AM, Throwback wrote:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created a founding document which enumerated federal powers. All other powers were reserved to the respective states and the people. Why, then, did they insist soon after, when the first 10 amendments to the constitution were ratified, that the right to keep and bear arms by the people be enumerated and specifically protected. Without this 2nd amendment protection, the right to keep and bear arms was not enumerated as a federal power, meaning there was no federal jurisdiction.

They probably felt that words like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" to be unambiguous.

Its not a federal power, its a right enumerated to the people, and like all rights enumerated to the people, its protected (or at least should be) at all levels of government. 'Jurisdiction' not needed.

I don't think I was clear. I apologize. Prior to the first ten amendments, the Constitution itself was sufficient to keep the federal government from disarming the citizens, as it was outside their scope of authority to even attempt it. My question was aimed at why they felt that right, among others, was so important that although inviolable under the constitution, the amendment was added later under the first U.S. Congress. It only punctuated an undeniable right already granted by the constitution.

If it hadn't been there, the fourteenth amendment would have given the federal government that power.

The Bill of Rights was put in so that, even were the government to expand its power, there were certain sacred things that they could never touch.

I agree. The constitution was only ratified "as is" with the promise amendments to protect further rights would be considered in the first Congress. At the time, a promise meant you intended to do the thing promise; thus what became the bill of rights was passed. Although all rights of the federal government were listed to the exclusion of all others, some were fearful of overreach; others were fearful the enumeration of specific rights would eventually come to be misunderstood of an enumeration of citizen rights, to the exclusion of all others. I believe both were right.

I agree that it was added as a second layer of protection, a backup.

Thankfully so, as there are many things the government does that the constitution does not authorize. Unless you completely twist the meanings into something else, which is what has been done.

The constitution was written to tell the government what it could do, it outlined their authority. Now it's more usually used to argue what the government cannot do after they have done it.

Yep, it's upside down. It's amazing. The constitution is still there, but we're told by a majority of lawyers on the Supreme Court that it doesn't say what it says. It's been flipped upside down from its intent. I feel sorry for my kids. At least I can remember being free. They never were.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.