• 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!

Federal judge OKs D.C.'s latest set of gun-control laws

TurtleDude said:
Alvin T. Grey said:
LOL another person clueless about what well regulated means in the context of the amendment.

You are so wrong it is not funny. If you were right the second part of the amendment would say the right of the state to keep and arm militias shall not be infringed

since you seem so well versed in the constitution, point me to the clause that delegated-to the federal government-the power to regulate small arms

me-I only taught the subject at a couple law schools

you?
Click to expand...
It doesn't control the arms. it states the reason for personal posession of arms. That being in order to provide for the common defence. Which is what a malitia is in this instance. And said malitia should be well regulated. So where does that lead?
Big Daddy Gubment knows who you are, where you are, what you have and where you keep it. Otherwise it's impossible for them to regulate worth ****.
Click to expand...
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
It doesn't control the arms. it states the reason for personal posession of arms. That being in order to provide for the common defence. Which is what a malitia is in this instance. And said malitia should be well regulated. So where does that lead?
Big Daddy Gubment knows who you are, where you are, what you have and where you keep it. Otherwise it's impossible for them to regulate worth ****.
Click to expand...


Actually a number of scholars have stated that the military useage of "well regulated" in the late 1700's referred to a military force that was properly armed and equipped and ready for battle, rather than the modern meaning of "regulated".

Given that the Founders made it quite clear that "the militia" meant "all free men capable of bearing arms", who were considered "the unorganized militia", they could not be regulated in the modern sense because they were, in fact, unorganized until needed.
 
Last edited:
Alvin T. Grey said:
You are not the militia in the same way as everyone between the ages of 18-45 is not a hooker.

In both cases you meet the qualifications, but only a certain few actually are.
Click to expand...

The Founders had a slightly different view.


What the Founders of the US said about guns:
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to
the Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot,
Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent
Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers,
334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
Click to expand...


On what is the militia:

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott,
Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the
best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789,
emphasis added.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had
standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It
does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army"
to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped
militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered
by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution,
but not from the second amendment.

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
(Federalist Paper #29)

"Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped." (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}" There is
something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one
is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)
Click to expand...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's not select fire.
Select fire would make it an automatic or 3 short burst.

It fires a 22 cartridge, which is not intermediate.

What difference does it make that it is magazine fed?
You do know that the vast majority of crimes are committed with hand guns, don't you?

000017.JPG


What about these two?
What's wrong with them?
Click to expand...

They're scary looking! BAN THEM.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Do you support warrantless phone taps?

I've owned guns since I was 18, to date 0 people have been threatened or harmed by those guns.
And no I don't think I'm Rambo.
Click to expand...

Warrantless wiretaps? Start a thread and talk about it. That has nothing to do with this thread.

And if every gun owner had your track record of 0 people being harmed, we wouldn't need gun laws, would we?
 
hazlnut said:
Warrantless wiretaps? Start a thread and talk about it. That has nothing to do with this thread.

And if every gun owner had your track record of 0 people being harmed, we wouldn't need gun laws, would we?
Click to expand...

If you support the infringement of one right then why not another? Especially if you want to use the technology argument as a reason for that infringement.
 
hazlnut said:
Warrantless wiretaps? Start a thread and talk about it. That has nothing to do with this thread.

And if every gun owner had your track record of 0 people being harmed, we wouldn't need gun laws, would we?
Click to expand...
All rights are interrelated, then again I've never seen you default on the side of rights, so I can see how you don't understand this.
 
hazlnut said:
Warrantless wiretaps? Start a thread and talk about it. That has nothing to do with this thread.

And if every gun owner had your track record of 0 people being harmed, we wouldn't need gun laws, would we?
Click to expand...

libs want or need gun laws to hassle gun owners

public safety has nothing to do with what motivates people like Schumer, Sugarmann or the Brady Bunch
 
hazlnut said:
Warrantless wiretaps? Start a thread and talk about it. That has nothing to do with this thread.
Click to expand...

It's entirely relevant.
Do you or don't you?

hazlnut said:
And if every gun owner had your track record of 0 people being harmed, we wouldn't need gun laws, would we?
Click to expand...

Check this out, you can legally own a flame thrower, there are 0 laws regarding the ownership and construction of them.
How many people die every year from flame thrower attacks?

You'd be surprised at how many "illegal" full auto weapons there are in the U.S. but the use of them in crimes in tiny.

Laws don't make people safe.
 
hazlnut said:
Warrantless wiretaps? Start a thread and talk about it. That has nothing to do with this thread.
Click to expand...

You argument was:

If you're not doing anything wrong--then don't sweat it.
Click to expand...

If that argument is valid, it is valid, period, and therefore applies to wiretaps.

Do you or do you not support the government tapping phone lines w/o a warrant, based on your premise that if you're not doing anything wrong, you dont need to sweat it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom