CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Foxfyre, Feb 24, 2018.

?

Of the choices offered to liberals and conservatives in the OP. . .

  1. I don't need to compromise as I can accept all or most.

  2. I can't accept any or most of the choices.

  3. I can accept the options for compromise given the liberals but not the conservatives.

  4. I can accept the options for compromise given the conservatives but not the liberals.

  5. Other that I will explain in my post.

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. C_Clayton_Jones
    Online

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    48,490
    Thanks Received:
    10,329
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +32,431
    Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

    “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[]” by government.

    Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

    Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

    Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

    The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

    And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

    In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

    Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.
     
  2. ChrisL
    Offline

    ChrisL Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    80,799
    Thanks Received:
    21,351
    Trophy Points:
    2,320
    Location:
    Wherever the wild things are!!
    Ratings:
    +53,446
    The Bill of Rights is meant to protect the people's rights from government encroachment. The founders wanted a government that ONLY did the necessities and not to have it involved in people's day to day lives.

    So, would you agree to have a clean debate with my friend who is a constitutional lawyer about the purpose of the Bill of Rights, the meaning of the 2nd amendment?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    67,521
    Thanks Received:
    12,107
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +49,161

    And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,683
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,410
    While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  5. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,642
    Thanks Received:
    833
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +3,679
    So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.
     
  6. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    53,623
    Thanks Received:
    13,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +21,946
    The wrinkle in that argument is that the Founders had no way to envision Bradley tanks or machine guns or shouldered rocket launchers. For them at the time the Constitution was written, 'arms' were swords, knives, pistols and long guns, single shot at that plus some primitive mortars, howitzers, and cannon. Just as when they wrote there should be no abridgment of free speech or religion, they could not have envisioned 50 watt radio stations that can obliterate their weaker competition unless there is regulation of the airways, or the ability to send text and pictures from around the world to be viewed by people in their own living rooms and that resulted in regulation of what legal content--no incitement to riot, et al--could be transmitted and/or what would be considered decent content. They could not have imagined a Jim Jones who would so corrupt religious faith that he poisoned 900 of his followers on a single day or the necessity for law enforcement to have ability to intervene in something like that.

    The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

    To many conservatives I think won't allow 'intent' to be a factor when interpreting the words of the Constitution. And too many liberals want to twist/misrepresent and/or ignore intent and sometimes what the Constitution says period.

    What we need is more education and training in Constitutional scholarship. . .and. . .

    What we need is a national conversation that is thoughtful and focused on finding solutions to the problem instead of just more finger pointing, accusing, ideological denial, trolling, insulting, and casting blame and/or just one more legal band aid applied.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  7. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    54,047
    Thanks Received:
    7,338
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +23,678
    The entire list of suggestions that "liberals" are asked to accept is bogus and assumes that liberals don't have any friggen idea
    how to raise children.

    Why would anyone entertain the discussion?
     
  8. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    53,623
    Thanks Received:
    13,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +21,946
    Bogus? So you don't accept any of them as valid goals to shoot for? (And we wonder why this country is so screwed up right now.) But there's apparently another vote for 'hell no, I won't compromise as I would rather the country be screwed up rather than agree we need to do some things differently.
     
  9. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    54,047
    Thanks Received:
    7,338
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +23,678

    Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?
    --kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

    Liberals already advocate for responsible parenting. And violent people come from all kinds of homes. Bogus.
     
  10. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    54,047
    Thanks Received:
    7,338
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +23,678
    -kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

    Religion is not needed for kids to learn love, respect for life and "authority", caring from others. Many criminals grew up in churches and synagogues. Bogus.
     

Share This Page