• 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!

Guns

What do you think gun control should be like?

  • Let everyone have a gun

    Votes: 19 22.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase and carry

    Votes: 25 29.4%

  • Quick background check to purchase, but more difficult to carry

    Votes: 11 12.9%

  • Background check, waiting period for purchase and carrying.

    Votes: 17 20.0%

  • Background check, waiting period, no carrying

    Votes: 5 5.9%

  • No guns at all

    Votes: 8 9.4%
  • Total voters
    85
Status
Not open for further replies.
cpwill said:
we absolutely do care deeply about those things. That is why we want as many law abiding people as possible to be responsibly armed. criminals respond to incentives as much as anyone else - to include the disencentive of a potentially armed not-so-willing victim.
Click to expand...
I've used this personal example here before, but it fits yet again. A couple of years ago I was pulled over at the convenience store I frequent, I was finishing up something paper related but I noticed a little plug in the car to my right with his eyes glued on me with that "should I try something" look on his face. Well, I decided he was glaring a little too long so I rolled the window down and said "I am armed and have no problem shooting a criminal, stop eyeballin' me", anything he possibly thought about doing was out the window, he looked at his steering wheel from that point on, looked like he pissed himself a little too. Some people would call that an over the top reaction, but there was no pull, and no further incident after that, I'd say that was a perfectly valid non-use defense.
 
taxigirl said:
It is not about "hassling" gun owners, it is about applying restrictions on people who seek to legally own guns who have that right, according to the second amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS.

If "The" miltia was irrelevant, SCOTUS would have determined so.
Click to expand...

the last two gun-related cases were ruled 5 to 4.

this is about making sure that folks who buy guns, have the legal right to buy guns, aren't going to sell them on the street, and aren't mentally unfit to own a firearm.
 
Thunder said:
meanwhile, the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and the Militia Act of 1792 make it very clear that The Militia was a government regulated, disciplined, instructed, and organized group.
Click to expand...

A militia does not have to be an arm of the government.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), stated:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. 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”
Click to expand...

n Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
Click to expand...

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Thunder said:
the last two gun-related cases were ruled 5 to 4.

this is about making sure that folks who buy guns, have the legal right to buy guns, aren't going to sell them on the street, and aren't mentally unfit to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

Ok, then what does make you "mentally unfit" to own a gun?
 
Thunder said:
tell that to Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

tell that to the Militia Act of 1792, made law AFTER the 2nd Amendment was passed.
Click to expand...

Read the CASE LAW.
 
taxigirl said:
Ok, then what does make you "mentally unfit" to own a gun?
Click to expand...

having been institutionalized by a judge. And according to some folks here, being found mentally unfit by the Armed Forces also effects your ability to own a firearm.
 
taxigirl said:
A militia does not have to be an arm of the government.




Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
That is correct. I think people have a flawed interpretation of what the intended militia was. Modern militias are protected as long as they conform to U.S. federal and state law, but they are private militias comprised of the general militia populace. The National Guard is a state militia likewise comprised of the general populace but required to follow the U.S.M.C.J.

The most basic definition of the militia is all able bodied males 18-45, Article 1 Section 8 provides for the state to provide officers for discipline and training of such which is applicable to times of martial law under either a general civilian draft or deputization. Under those specific circumstances civilians called up for police and military action would be directly under the supervision of the local officer in charge of that specific division. This is the most accurate definition of the militia at large.
 
Thunder said:
read the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Thunder,
from reading your posts since I have been on DP I can that you are intelligent enough to know that when SCOTUS hears and rules on a case, that ruling becomes the standard.
 
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, and the Militia Act of 1792, CLEARLY spells out how The Militia is to be run, organized, supervised, trained, and operated.

its in plain English. There is no ambiguity. The Militia is run by the government, to assist the government in defending the nation and putting down insurrections.
 
taxigirl said:
Thunder,
from reading your posts since I have been on DP I can that you are intelligent enough to know that when SCOTUS hears and rules on a case, that ruling becomes the standard.
Click to expand...

suggesting that a 5 to 4 ruling on gun laws makes the SCOTUS unambiguously on one side of this issue, is silly & ignorant.

taxigirl said:
...If "The" miltia was irrelevant, SCOTUS would have determined so.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, and the Militia Act of 1792, CLEARLY spells out how The Militia is to be run, organized, supervised, trained, and operated.

its in plain English. There is no ambiguity. The Militia is run by the government, to assist the government in defending the nation and putting down insurrections.
Click to expand...
Yes it does, and unfortunately you read it wrong.
 
Thunder said:
how am I wrong?
Click to expand...
You are quoting the militia as a state sponsored organization. The militia is defined as those able to be called up during a time of unrest. This means that all able bodied males 18-45 are subject to either deputization or draft under martial law for domestic turmoil OR need during a time of war. The National guard is a state militia which is entered into voluntarily, they are under the army thus fall under the U.S.M.C.J. and may be called up by the national army during a time of war. Private militias drill on their own and may be called up, but not because they identify as such but because they are part of the able bodied males 18-45 that are specifically cited under the U.S.C.

You're welcome.
 
I don't really have a problem with non-violent, non-crazy adults owning guns. Obviously you need a background check to confirm that they aren't violent and/or crazy. As far as actually CARRYING the weapons...meh. Again, I don't really have a problem with it if the person can prove that they're responsible. I would probably suggest a lengthier background check for this, since a person can be non-violent and non-crazy but still be a complete dip****. To carry a weapon, I'd suggest something akin to a driver's test...if someone can show that they know the basics of firearm safety (and they can pass the background check to get the weapon in the first place), they can carry it if they want.

That would seem like the most sensible solution to me. I have no interest in taking guns away from people who haven't done anything wrong and just want them for protection and/or sport. But background checks are necessary to make sure that the crazies can't easily get them.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
You are quoting the militia as a state sponsored organization. The militia is defined as those able to be called up during a time of unrest. This means that all able bodied males 18-45 are subject to either deputization or draft under martial law for domestic turmoil OR need during a time of war. The National guard is a state militia which is entered into voluntarily, they are under the army thus fall under the U.S.M.C.J. and may be called up by the national army during a time of war. Private militias drill on their own and may be called up, but not because they identify as such but because they are part of the able bodied males 18-45 that are specifically cited under the U.S.C.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

The Constitution of the USA, the Militia Act of 1792, and the 2nd Amendment, do NOT mention anything known as a "private Militia", ever. All they talk about, is the government organized/trained/supervised Militia.

as far as I am concerned, these private armies, that you call Militias, are illegal.

you're welcome.
 
Thunder said:
The Constitution of the USA, the Militia Act of 1792, and the 2nd Amendment, do NOT mention anything known as a "private Militia", ever. All they talk about, is the government organized/trained/supervised Militia.

as far as I am concerned, these private armies, that you call Militias, are illegal.

you're welcome.
Click to expand...
Well, you have every right to be wrong. The reason they are private militias is because they are not affiliated with the state militia or military but they train on a regular basis, they are protected as long as they do not break federal or state laws meaning if they use automatics or explosives they are licensed. They may be called up if they are 18-45 and whether you believe they are illegal or not does not make one bit of difference. You make the mistake of thinking that because they aren't mentioned in the constitution then they are not protected, which is a major fail on your part. The consititution does mention every able bodied male 18-45 being IN THE MILITIA, so all who apply to that standard in the private militia are in fact part of the general one.

You really should learn about these things before you post.
 
LaMidRighter said:
...They may be called up if they are 18-45 and whether you believe they are illegal or not does not make one bit of difference.....
Click to expand...

these private armies, made up of mostly right-wing crazies, bigots, and extremists, will NEVER be called to do anything for the govt. other than to clean toilets.
 
Thunder said:
these private armies, made up of mostly right-wing crazies, bigots, and extremists, will NEVER be called to do anything for the govt. other than to clean toilets.
Click to expand...
You have no clue what comprises them or how many there are. Glad to see all you have is out of context quotations, bigotry, emotionalizing, and demonizing left.
 
Thunder said:
meanwhile, the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and the Militia Act of 1792 make it very clear that The Militia was a government regulated, disciplined, instructed, and organized group.
Click to expand...

not at all. the Constitution (which includes the 2nd Amendment) makes no organizational notes whatsoever. the Militia Act merely provides for one. Here is some of the relevant language:

...Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes...
Click to expand...

You'll note they were self-organizing, and locally organized and maintained.

The Founders were pretty clear that the armed citizenry A) were all potential members of the militia and B) intended as a defense against an over powerful government.
 
Thunder said:
these private armies, made up of mostly right-wing crazies, bigots, and extremists, will NEVER be called to do anything for the govt. other than to clean toilets.
Click to expand...

...except, that, of course, they have been. How did you think the armies of the Civil War (for example) were created? Mostly it was just federalized militia units.
 
Don't forget what kicked the Founders into the Revolutionary War, after all. The British Army moved to seize privately held stores of Cannon.
 
cpwill said:
I give you a study that actually quantifies. You explain that as an engineer you don't like stuff that isn't quantifiable, which you seem to suggest includes said study. Then you argue from a non-quantifiable stance....

you were lucky, frankly, that the guy was not actually willing to kill you. had he been so, then you not being armed would have meant that the police would have arrived far too late for you or (had they been there) potentially your family.
Click to expand...

I was not expecting a pistol to show up pointed at me from 5 feet. I was not expecting him to be armed. I was in a weak position unless I had a pistol pointed at him first. To do so I would have had to have a valid reason. I didn't. I could have been the one going to jail. I don't think he was actually willing to kill me and his behavior was bearing that out. That put him a great risk, but the police arrived in time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom