• 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 Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516:1716:2243]

Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Long live the militia and Free Men everywhere. :thumbs:

What militia are you referring to?
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

If we don't have a militia, the reason for the Second becomes dead.

Of course it does not. Heller makes very clear that the right to keep and bear arms is individual.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

What militia are you referring to?

The one that will be called up in case of a liberal take over of government. :2razz:

Of course it does not. Heller makes very clear that the right to keep and bear arms is individual.

Correct!
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Of course it does not. Heller makes very clear that the right to keep and bear arms is individual.

No without Heller ... or before Heller ...there is no reason for the Second Amendment now that we do not have a militia?
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

The one that will be called up in case of a liberal take over of government. :2razz:

That makes no sense. You are confusing a standing militia with traitors who do not get their own political way and wish to overthrow the will of the American people.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

That makes no sense. You are confusing a standing militia with traitors who do not get their own political way and wish to overthrow the will of the American people.

Not really.

Let me take you back to The Thrilling Days of Yesteryear........and the Boston Tea Party.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Not really.

Let me take you back to The Thrilling Days of Yesteryear........and the Boston Tea Party.

Apparently you do not know the difference between the British government abusing one of its own colonies and the will of the American people as expressed through the normal election process.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

No without Heller ... or before Heller ...there is no reason for the Second Amendment now that we do not have a militia?

I don't know what you mean by that garbled sentence.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

I don't know what you mean by that garbled sentence.

The Second Amendment tells us that the reason for it is to provide a militia for the security of a free state. It was a cheap alternative to a standing army.

We no longer have a militia.
We now have a standing army.

So before Heller invented a reason that was not part of the Amendment for the previous two centuries why did we have it when the reason for it no longer existed?
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

The Second Amendment tells us that the reason for it is to provide a militia for the security of a free state. It was a cheap alternative to a standing army.

We no longer have a militia.
We now have a standing army.

So before Heller invented a reason that was not part of the Amendment for the previous two centuries why did we have it when the reason for it no longer existed?
the 2nd is a restriction to make no law concerning the militia of a state, and the people bearing arms.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

The Second Amendment tells us that the reason for it is to provide a militia for the security of a free state. It was a cheap alternative to a standing army.

We no longer have a militia.
We now have a standing army.

So before Heller invented a reason that was not part of the Amendment for the previous two centuries why did we have it when the reason for it no longer existed?

You might want to read Heller. Justice Scalia's opinion made clear that the right to keep and bear arms does not depend on an organized militia:


As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”


Your assertion about the reason for the Second Amendment is also inaccurate. As Heller makes clear, the amendment guarantees a fundamental right that predates the Constitution and does not depend on it for its existence.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

the 2nd is a restriction to make no law concerning the militia of a state, and the people bearing arms.

the second amendment was designed to reiterate that the federal government has no proper power, whatsoever, to interfere with what arms citizens can own in their own sovereign states. One of the reasons for that was to make sure citizens could form militias -which by definition, are something created in an emergency (and thus people joining the call up would have to have arms for the militia to be "well regulated"-ie in working order. A disarmed militia is sort of like a fire brigade with no water, hoses, buckets or axes)
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

the second amendment was designed to reiterate that the federal government has no proper power, whatsoever, to interfere with what arms citizens can own in their own sovereign states. One of the reasons for that was to make sure citizens could form militias -which by definition, are something created in an emergency (and thus people joining the call up would have to have arms for the militia to be "well regulated"-ie in working order. A disarmed militia is sort of like a fire brigade with no water, hoses, buckets or axes)
the militia of a state is under no authority from the federal goverment while it is under state authority, once the president asks the state for its use and it is approved by the state then it is called into service and is under federal authority, and article 1 section 8 applies to the militia, (militia act),once the militia returns to state authority, the militia act no longer applies.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

the militia of a state is under no authority from the federal goverment while it is under state authority, once the president asks the state for its use and it is approved by the state then it is called into service and is under federal authority, and article 1 section 8 applies to the militia, (militia act),once the militia returns to state authority, the militia act no longer applies.

right you are. One of the sillier arguments you see these days are claims that the militia act shows that the founders intended congress to have the power to regulate what firearms PRIVATE citizens owned in their own HOMES. obviously this fact destroys what was a stupid argument to being with
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

right you are. One of the sillier arguments you see these days are claims that the militia act shows that the founders intended congress to have the power to regulate what firearms PRIVATE citizens owned in their own HOMES. obviously this fact destroys what was a stupid argument to being with
the key is "called into service", stated in both the constitution and the militia act
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

These are legal rights, such as limitations on the federal government. They especially exist in civilized cultures with a well formed legal code. The rights may have pre-existed our Federal and state governments, but did they exist before governments existed?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been the rights every human has desired, throughout history, whether "free men" or in the charge of some prince, preener or drama queen.

I do not think the same can be said about ownership of a deadly weapon. That is not a God given, natural right, but a privilege endowed to us by our neighbors and legislators.

Wrong, neither my neighbors or legislators have the Legal power to tell me whether I have the right to protect myself, family, or property by ownership or use of a deadly weapon. I am no threat to my neighbors or the legislator so long as they abide by the law and Constitution and do not attempt to violate my personal rights. You might surprised how many gun owners think the exact same way. Those worried about gun violence have nothing to fear from those that believe in the Constitution, we believe in the Law, it is those that disregarded the law that they need to fear and no laws will change that.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

The People are the Militia.


POINT 1:

Direct reply to what you are stating.

George Mason did NOT write the 2nd Amendment. What you are quoting is out of context. Here is only the FULL quote of what he said in that Convention (and a link to the entire conversation):

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered.

Elliot’s Debates: Volume 3 | Teaching American History

It has exactly NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment. Additionally...it is merely a STATEMENT by someone and NOT a legal definition of what militia says AND within the CONTEXT of the discussion...it is quite clear that the SPEAKER ALSO recognizes that the word "militia" is subject to change in the future...and it is NOT an ACTUAL LEGAL definition of Militia as I have requested you to provide on multiple occasions. BUT even STILL. If you are still stating that this quote is the justification for only militia members to be allowed to have firearms...based upon the verbiage...it does NOT. It would mean that ALL citizens are thusly members of the militia and thusly we would ALL be allowed to bear arms.

All the 2nd Amendment states is that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." It does NOT give the authority to the Federal government to regulate the militia. Thus any federal regulations would be nullified because they do not have the power based upon the second amendment. They are not GIVEN authority in the second amendment to regulate. And your quote? It is a recognition of the importance of a militia, and using your quote, the militia is an organization of the PEOPLE and NOT the Government.

SECOND Point:

"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."

This is the wording. The BOLDED is for emphasis. If you are attempting to REDEFINE the 2nd Amendment to mean that ONLY members of the militia are to be armed...therein lies the problem. YOU MUST provide evidence that the "people" is ONLY the militia. Your evidence above DOES NOT suffice as it is 1) Not a legal definition 2) Has nothing to do with bearing arms. So AGAIN...you are STILL required to provide proof that the "right of the people" is ONLY the right of the militia.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

the 2nd is a restriction to make no law concerning the militia of a state, and the people bearing arms.

You just made that up as it does not say that.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

You might want to read Heller. Justice Scalia's opinion made clear that the right to keep and bear arms does not depend on an organized militia:

I have read it and I saw the stuff he invented.

As Heller makes clear, the amendment guarantees a fundamental right that predates the Constitution and does not depend on it for its existence.

Where did it exist before the Constitution?
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

POINT 1:

Direct reply to what you are stating.

George Mason did NOT write the 2nd Amendment. What you are quoting is out of context. Here is only the FULL quote of what he said in that Convention (and a link to the entire conversation):



Elliot’s Debates: Volume 3 | Teaching American History

It has exactly NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment. Additionally...it is merely a STATEMENT by someone and NOT a legal definition of what militia says AND within the CONTEXT of the discussion...it is quite clear that the SPEAKER ALSO recognizes that the word "militia" is subject to change in the future...and it is NOT an ACTUAL LEGAL definition of Militia as I have requested you to provide on multiple occasions. BUT even STILL. If you are still stating that this quote is the justification for only militia members to be allowed to have firearms...based upon the verbiage...it does NOT. It would mean that ALL citizens are thusly members of the militia and thusly we would ALL be allowed to bear arms.

All the 2nd Amendment states is that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." It does NOT give the authority to the Federal government to regulate the militia. Thus any federal regulations would be nullified because they do not have the power based upon the second amendment. They are not GIVEN authority in the second amendment to regulate. And your quote? It is a recognition of the importance of a militia, and using your quote, the militia is an organization of the PEOPLE and NOT the Government.

SECOND Point:



This is the wording. The BOLDED is for emphasis. If you are attempting to REDEFINE the 2nd Amendment to mean that ONLY members of the militia are to be armed...therein lies the problem. YOU MUST provide evidence that the "people" is ONLY the militia. Your evidence above DOES NOT suffice as it is 1) Not a legal definition 2) Has nothing to do with bearing arms. So AGAIN...you are STILL required to provide proof that the "right of the people" is ONLY the right of the militia.

Why ignore, 10USC311, but for right wing fantasy.
 
Re: Why Gun Nuts Lie - I Know From Experience[W:516]

Our federal Constitution claims our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

what was the natural right that pre-exists the creation of the federal government that the founders sought to recognize with the second amendment?
 
Back
Top Bottom