Hone our arguments: bringing up anti-gun points
Advertise with us Click for Rates
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Hone our arguments: bringing up anti-gun points

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    18

    Default Hone our arguments: bringing up anti-gun points

    All, long story short I was watching a Youtube video with Colion Noir debating against some people on TMZ. The hosts on TMZ tried to extend a point from the 1st amendment to the 2nd amendment. Although the 1st says that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, we have slander/libel laws and laws against calls to violence. TMZ then followed that with the thought that since there are limitations on the 1st, why can't there be limitations on the 2nd?

    What would your response be? Also, if you have an argument against firearms that you would like post on this thread, feel free. I think this mental exercise would be greatly beneficial to all. We could even politely point out flaws in others' arguments if occasion requires.

    My response is that slander and libel are state crimes. There are not federal laws for defamation (although I have looked on the interwebs and I am getting different answers to this). Thus, these points are not contradictory. That said, following that train of logic states could also pass laws against "hate speech", but that might be tangential. Getting back to the 2nd, the "shall not be infringed" clause applies to federal, state, and local governments. To my knowledge, any gun law that effectively eliminates firearms (more specifically semi-autos as that is the more hot topic debate) has been overturned as being unconstitutional (I do not see mag limits as effectively eliminating firearms; that said, I don't think that is an appropriate law).

    Any other thoughts?
    BigNastyCowboy likes this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    560

    Default

    The 1st Amendment says Congress shall make no law... It doesn't say States shall make no law. The Founders were not idiots and they knew the meaning of the words they used and they chose and used them very carefully with much debate of the smallest details.

    I've mentioned it before but have not had time or context to really delve into the question of incorporation. Unfortunately, I spent too much time playing computer games tonight and don't have time now, nearly midnight, to fully address the issue. Perhaps tomorrow.

    For now, the short version. The 1st Amendment was very explicitly aimed at the Federal Government and very intentionally not at the States. The 2nd Amendment, on the other hand, is very clearly aimed at the States and the Federal Government. Since there's no such thing as a federal militia, inclusion of the militia in the discussion proves that the protections of the 2nd Amendment were intended to apply absolutely - to state and federal government.

    The Supreme Court has twisted the 14th Amendment Due Process clause to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights but the entire concept of selective incorporation is asinine. If there was any such intent in the 14th Amendment then it would certainly have to apply to all of the Amendments and to every other limit on the Federal government that is in the Constitution. But we know that it was never the intention of the Founders.

    But let's say that the 1st Amendment is incorporated.... What does the 1st Amendment say? Congress shall make no law.... So, Federal Government: Congress shall make no law... States of the Union: Congress shall make no law...... ok.. it's incorporated. Congress shall make no law.

    The Founders never felt there was a need to protect those rights from the States - the States were sovereign and had their own Constitutions. The Constitution of the United States was to form a union of those sovereign States. The State constitutions already, for the most part, had those protections. Some things, though, were important enough to the new nation that they felt it had to be explicitly included; thus the Bill of Rights.

    But you can't twist the word "Congress" into "State Legislatures" through the 14th Amendment. That's not incorporation; that's changing the words and the meaning. Nothing in the Constitution could ever be construed to empower the Supreme Court to apply powers or limits of Federal Government onto the States. And especially to do so selectively as though they, alone, can decide what the States can and cannot do.

    But, luckily for us, the 2nd Amendment, on the other hand, never required incorporation. Neither did the rest. Incorporation as a concept didn't come around until the 1920s and expanded into the 1930s all the way into the 1960s - and still the Court pretended that the 2nd didn't apply to the States until McDonald in 2010.

    From the day the Bill of Rights was ratified, no one ever considered that the 5th Amendment only applied to the Federal Government. The 5th Amendment doesn't say "Congress" or "the Federal Government".

    Since there was no standing army at the time the Bill of Rights was written, how could one interpret the 3rd Amendment to mean that only the Federal Government could not quarter soldiers in the homes of civilians? All soldiers were State soldiers - and they could not be quartered in the homes of civilians in times of peace. They only became psuedo-Federal soldiers in time of war and then they could be quartered in the homes of civilians - so the 3rd could never apply to anything except the States.

    Incorporation is the biggest usurpation of authority the Court has ever taken - greater even than the role of constitutional review of legislative acts.

    Well, I guess I gave the long version anyway. Too important of a topic and one I am clearly passionate about.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dabates06 View Post
    My response is that slander and libel are state crimes. There are not federal laws for defamation (although I have looked on the interwebs and I am getting different answers to this). Thus, these points are not contradictory. That said, following that train of logic states could also pass laws against "hate speech", but that might be tangential. Getting back to the 2nd, the "shall not be infringed" clause applies to federal, state, and local governments. To my knowledge, any gun law that effectively eliminates firearms (more specifically semi-autos as that is the more hot topic debate) has been overturned as being unconstitutional (I do not see mag limits as effectively eliminating firearms; that said, I don't think that is an appropriate law).

    Any other thoughts?
    You misunderstand the 2nd Amendment. It's not about the right to keep and bear guns; it's about the right to keep and bear [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] The magazine is certainly part of the weapon. I can own a gun, a sword, a ship, a fighter plane, a tank, a cannon. I can own the entire weapon - that includes parts, ammunition, accessories, all that it takes to make it a weapon. We're already starting to see laws violating the 2nd Amendment by restricting civilian use of body armor which is obviously protected by the 2nd Amendment.

    So, no, it's not an inappropriate law. It's an unconstitutional law and is, therefore, no law at all.
    BigNastyCowboy likes this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    NationalGunForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Banned NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Beaumont, Texas
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Levant View Post
    You misunderstand the 2nd Amendment. It's not about the right to keep and bear guns; it's about the right to keep and bear [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] The magazine is certainly part of the weapon. I can own a gun, a sword, a ship, a fighter plane, a tank, a cannon. I can own the entire weapon - that includes parts, ammunition, accessories, all that it takes to make it a weapon. We're already starting to see laws violating the 2nd Amendment by restricting civilian use of body armor which is obviously protected by the 2nd Amendment.

    So, no, it's not an inappropriate law. It's an unconstitutional law and is, therefore, no law at all.
    Nah.

    The subject you're surfacing is fallacious.

    I've written articles regarding "weapon equity."

    "The right to keep and bear arms ..." What, exactly is an "arm?" When governments talk about an "arms race," it's not about BB guns, is it?

    While the United States military and government agencies have evolved weapons capable of engaging high-tech warfare, civilians have access to marginally improved weapons ca. the 1776 era.

    That's appropriate.

    Civilians have needs that are not the same as the military and LEO. Those organizations are playing for the offense. Civilians are not allowed to play offense.

    Civilians hunt, compete for swell prizes, and plink. They also play for the defense.

    Proof of the concept of separation of offense and defense is the illegality of those civilian shooters who go on the offensive. We arrest those people.

    They are not protected by 2A.

    For those who want elevated access to weapons and have a strong desire to kill people, we actually pay people to do that.

    Join the military.

  6. #5
    Banned NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Beaumont, Texas
    Posts
    1,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dabates06 View Post
    All, long story short I was watching a Youtube video with Colion Noir debating against some people on TMZ. The hosts on TMZ tried to extend a point from the 1st amendment to the 2nd amendment. Although the 1st says that Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, we have slander/libel laws and laws against calls to violence. TMZ then followed that with the thought that since there are limitations on the 1st, why can't there be limitations on the 2nd?

    What would your response be? Also, if you have an argument against firearms that you would like post on this thread, feel free. I think this mental exercise would be greatly beneficial to all. We could even politely point out flaws in others' arguments if occasion requires.

    My response is that slander and libel are state crimes. There are not federal laws for defamation (although I have looked on the interwebs and I am getting different answers to this). Thus, these points are not contradictory. That said, following that train of logic states could also pass laws against "hate speech", but that might be tangential. Getting back to the 2nd, the "shall not be infringed" clause applies to federal, state, and local governments. To my knowledge, any gun law that effectively eliminates firearms (more specifically semi-autos as that is the more hot topic debate) has been overturned as being unconstitutional (I do not see mag limits as effectively eliminating firearms; that said, I don't think that is an appropriate law).

    Any other thoughts?
    There are sites that regard any number of pro/con issues and how to counter any points of any debate.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] that's antithetical to what you propose. I simply searched for "how to argue for gun control," point being that for every argument "for," there's an argument "against."

    There's no need to rehash all that here with guesses and stuff, but it does bring up the idea that the information's out there. All you have to do is let it in.

    From TFA:

    In any event, if you think the Second Amendment prohibits any and all restrictions on gun possession in the U.S. no matter what the circumstances, then you must believe that convicted murderers have the right to carry machine guns in prison. Right?

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    860

    Default

    There are limitations to the 2nd amendment.
    It is called murder, guess that is libel and slander with a firearm

  8. #7
    Ancient Gaseous Emanation Popeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sacramento area, CA
    Posts
    52,040

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigNastyCowboy View Post
    Nah.

    The subject you're surfacing is fallacious.

    I've written articles regarding "weapon equity."

    "The right to keep and bear arms ..." What, exactly is an "arm?" When governments talk about an "arms race," it's not about BB guns, is it?

    While the United States military and government agencies have evolved weapons capable of engaging high-tech warfare, civilians have access to marginally improved weapons ca. the 1776 era.

    That's appropriate.

    Civilians have needs that are not the same as the military and LEO. Those organizations are playing for the offense. Civilians are not allowed to play offense.

    Civilians hunt, compete for swell prizes, and plink. They also play for the defense.

    Proof of the concept of separation of offense and defense is the illegality of those civilian shooters who go on the offensive. We arrest those people.

    They are not protected by 2A.

    For those who want elevated access to weapons and have a strong desire to kill people, we actually pay people to do that.

    Join the military.
    The men who wrote the 2nd Amendment had not just returned from a hunting trip. They had just militarialy defeated the most powerful nation on Earth.
    Levant and BigNastyCowboy like this.
    The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.

  9. #8
    Senior Member NGF Addict! friendof2nd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Popeye View Post
    The men who wrote the 2nd Amendment had not just returned from a hunting trip. They had just militarialy defeated the most powerful nation on Earth.
    And they did it by having access to the same weapons that such nation had at the time.
    Levant likes this.
    Progressive = The new Political Correct name for a Communist

    A gun on your hip is like the insurance you pay every month that you hope never have to use.

    You can vote yourself into Socialism, but you will have to fight your way out of it! - Bearing Arms. com

  10. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigNastyCowboy View Post
    Nah.

    The subject you're surfacing is fallacious.

    I've written articles regarding "weapon equity."

    "The right to keep and bear arms ..." What, exactly is an "arm?" When governments talk about an "arms race," it's not about BB guns, is it?

    While the United States military and government agencies have evolved weapons capable of engaging high-tech warfare, civilians have access to marginally improved weapons ca. the 1776 era.

    That's appropriate.

    Civilians have needs that are not the same as the military and LEO. Those organizations are playing for the offense. Civilians are not allowed to play offense.

    Civilians hunt, compete for swell prizes, and plink. They also play for the defense.

    Proof of the concept of separation of offense and defense is the illegality of those civilian shooters who go on the offensive. We arrest those people.

    They are not protected by 2A.

    For those who want elevated access to weapons and have a strong desire to kill people, we actually pay people to do that.

    Join the military.
    The meaning of Nah is, "I don't have a viable logical, legal, or constitutional argument so I'll just blow you off."

    I provided the link to the period definition of Arms. Not that the word actually means different today, it wouldn't matter if it did mean different. The original intent didn't change. You must take the definition from the period.

    I have not, and no one here, no one I know in the entire world, has suggested any right to go on the offensive with the weapons we have. No one has suggested that the 2nd Amendment protects any such right. What you've offered is nothing but diversion.

    Subjects hunt, compete for swell prizes, and plink. People fighting for freedom also do all those things but also overthrow tyranny, defeat powerful governments and standing armies.

    Though you have provided some alternative views (strawmen), you didn't address with any logic, reference, or constitutional quote, a single point I made. Feel free to tell me what thing I said that is wrong and why it is wrong.

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KILTED COWBOY View Post
    There are limitations to the 2nd amendment.
    It is called murder, guess that is libel and slander with a firearm
    Murder is not a limitation on the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms didn't imply the right to shoot so there's no 2nd Amendment connection at all to murder.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)