• 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!

why we know the 2A is an individual right[W:999]

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Some claim its about political subdivisions arming militias or people who join up having arms. that is nonsense. Why-because in Cruikshank v the US (1870s) the USSC noted that the 2A created NO rights but merely recognized a pre existing right that did not depend on the constitution for its existence.

It recognizes an inalienable natural right that exists without the presence of government. a militia is a creature of government.
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

i' ll add this log to your fire.

The great object is that every man be armed........Everyone who is able may have a gun.

Patrick Henry (1736-1799)
Virginia Convention - Ratification of Constitution - 1788
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

It's not because they disagree it because it is damn inconvenient. You have to ask armed citizens nicely.... Government does not ask. It is force and violence is it's only communication method.
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Some claim its about political subdivisions arming militias or people who join up having arms. that is nonsense. Why-because in Cruikshank v the US (1870s) the USSC noted that the 2A created NO rights but merely recognized a pre existing right that did not depend on the constitution for its existence.

It recognizes an inalienable natural right that exists without the presence of government. a militia is a creature of government.

Are you saying there's no right to form a militia?
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Are you saying there's no right to form a militia?

I don't think that is what he is saying at all.

The 2A doesn't say a thing about the government's right to form a militia.
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

It recognizes an inalienable natural right that exists without the presence of government.
How can it be a natural right to possess a comparatively recently invented, man-made tool? :confused:
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

According to Turtle Dude it does.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read his post.

Keep in mind that he says the issue of militias has nothing to do with an individual's right to bear arms...according to the court case he cites. He says nothing in his post about the government's rights...only that a militia is a creation of government.
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

How can it be a natural right to possess a comparatively recently invented, man-made tool? :confused:

Recent?

Cavemen were armed the moment they picked up a leg bone and bashed someone over the head.
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

How can it be a natural right to possess a comparatively recently invented, man-made tool? :confused:

What the heck is recent about ARM? A stone passes this definition.
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Some claim its about political subdivisions arming militias or people who join up having arms. that is nonsense. Why-because in Cruikshank v the US (1870s) the USSC noted that the 2A created NO rights but merely recognized a pre existing right that did not depend on the constitution for its existence.

It recognizes an inalienable natural right that exists without the presence of government. a militia is a creature of government.

The 2A is a specific instruction to GOVERNMENT which AFFIRMS and ENUMERATES this right. Government is informed in absolute terms this right SHALL not be infringed. There are no exceptions and no conditions. The right is absolute. It belongs to the people.
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Recent?

Cavemen were armed the moment they picked up a leg bone and bashed someone over the head.

What the heck is recent about ARM? A stone passes this definition.

Fair enough. I await the creation of the "Club Control" forum. ;)
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Some claim its about political subdivisions arming militias or people who join up having arms. that is nonsense. Why-because in Cruikshank v the US (1870s) the USSC noted that the 2A created NO rights but merely recognized a pre existing right that did not depend on the constitution for its existence.

It recognizes an inalienable natural right that exists without the presence of government. a militia is a creature of government.

The idea that 2A gives the state the right to arm militia members makes sense until one thinks about it for 5 seconds. Why does the state need to be guaranteed that right? Like they are not going to give their armed forces arms?

No, 2A is in a list of rights guaranteed to individuals, the Bill of Rights. Of course it's an individual right. It arises directly in opposition to the English tradition of denying subjects the right to have weapons. Americans are subjects of no one.
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

How can it be a natural right to possess a comparatively recently invented, man-made tool? :confused:

its a silly mistake to confuse the natural right to be armed with the state of the art
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Perhaps you should go back and re-read his post.

Keep in mind that he says the issue of militias has nothing to do with an individual's right to bear arms...according to the court case he cites. He says nothing in his post about the government's rights...only that a militia is a creation of government.

its an attempt to derail. under the 10A states retain the power to raise a militia
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

The idea that 2A gives the state the right to arm militia members makes sense until one thinks about it for 5 seconds. Why does the state need to be guaranteed that right? Like they are not going to give their armed forces arms?

No, 2A is in a list of rights guaranteed to individuals, the Bill of Rights. Of course it's an individual right. It arises directly in opposition to the English tradition of denying subjects the right to have weapons. Americans are subjects of no one.

the Lautenberg amendment and subsequent legal actions proved that the right is an individual one which can be lost through due process of law. If the right vested with the state, then the federal government could not disarm individual guardsmen or police officers through the 68 GCA and its amendment
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Fair enough. I await the creation of the "Club Control" forum. ;)

Please...don't give anyone (especially liberals) any ideas.

;)
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Please...don't give anyone (especially liberals) any ideas.

;)

don't worry-Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson will lead the jihad against such an organization
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

Some claim its about political subdivisions arming militias or people who join up having arms. that is nonsense. Why-because in Cruikshank v the US (1870s) the USSC noted that the 2A created NO rights but merely recognized a pre existing right that did not depend on the constitution for its existence.

It recognizes an inalienable natural right that exists without the presence of government. a militia is a creature of government.

No, that's not it.

The Founders feared standing armies. Standing armies comprise professionals who's primary loyalty is to the Army not the People. A militia, however, comprises common citizens who are loyal to their community not the Army. The Second Amendment ensures the People an army of common citizens by declaring for them a right to "keep and bear arms," or control and serve in the military.
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

No, that's not it.

The Founders feared standing armies. Standing armies comprise professionals who's primary loyalty is to the Army not the People. A militia, however, comprises common citizens who are loyal to their community not the Army. The Second Amendment ensures the People an army of common citizens by declaring for them a right to "keep and bear arms," or control and serve in the military.

major fail, being in a militia was a sufficient reason for people to be able to exercise the natural right of free people to be armed. since that right pre-existed the constitution (in the eyes of the founders,) it pre-existed government and thus was an individual inalienable right

and given the fact that the founders never came close to delegating any authority to the federal government to regulate guns (time and place restrictions were seen as a state power), your comment is without any support

the fact is, those who want the federal government to restrict guns are forced to engage in idiotic contortions of the language that disregards the entire context of what surrounded the creation of the USC and the BoR
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

major fail, being in a militia was a sufficient reason for people to be able to exercise the natural right of free people to be armed. since that right pre-existed the constitution (in the eyes of the founders,) it pre-existed government and thus was an individual inalienable right

and given the fact that the founders never came close to delegating any authority to the federal government to regulate guns (time and place restrictions were seen as a state power), your comment is without any support

the fact is, those who want the federal government to restrict guns are forced to engage in idiotic contortions of the language that disregards the entire context of what surrounded the creation of the USC and the BoR

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with guns. It declares a right to operate a well-regulated militia, an army of common citizens. The phrases it uses to that, "keep...arms" and "bear arms," are misinterpreted as "have guns" and "carry guns." They actually mean "manage an army" and "serve in an army."
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with guns. It declares a right to operate a well-regulated militia, an army of common citizens. The phrases it uses to that, "keep...arms" and "bear arms" are misinterpreted as "have guns" and "carry guns." The actually mean "manage an army" and "serve in an army."

that is so moronic its only worth a laugh. you clearly are making this up in a futile attempt to justify gun control

arms also includes swords, switchblade knives (Supreme Court of Oregon), poleaxes, sabers, clubs and dirks.
 
Re: why we know the 2A is an individual right

that is so moronic its only worth a laugh. you clearly are making this up in a futile attempt to justify gun control

arms also includes swords, switchblade knives (Supreme Court of Oregon), poleaxes, sabers, clubs and dirks.

OK. It has nothing to do with swords, switchblades, etc. either.
 
Back
Top Bottom