• 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!

What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

  • You can have any gun you want and no one can stop you.

    Votes: 15 34.9%
  • You can have any ARM you want. Why stop at guns? Knives, grenades, nunchucks, tanks...it's all good!

    Votes: 8 18.6%
  • Yeah, you can have a gun, but there are limits to that right, like every other right.

    Votes: 15 34.9%
  • You can have a gun so you can join in a militia instead of having a standing army.

    Votes: 7 16.3%
  • You can have an 18th century single-shot firearm and no one can stop you.

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • You and your gun cannot be singled out by the government, it has to follow it's own laws

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • As a principle you should have the right to a gun, but we're not going to explain how.

    Votes: 4 9.3%
  • It's purposefully vague.

    Votes: 4 9.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 10 23.3%

  • Total voters
    43
The term "well-regulated" means operated in such a way as to achieve substantially all of the attributes of the object being managed. In the case of the well-regulated militia of the Second Amendment, the militia must reflect the character and nature of the citizenry at large not that of a standing army.
I'm a retired design engineer and I still thing like one. So, please explain what is "the character and nature of the citizenry at large"? Could it be just a neighbor hood, or the majority of a town or a state etc.
 
It’s Unfit To Exist – LewRockwell.com


The Constitution Does Not Grant Rights!

I have in the past written about the folly of constitution worship here and here, but the widespread belief by most Americans that this document grants us our rights, and that it also is meant to protect our freedoms, is in my opinion absurd.

Natural rights, or any rights for that matter, are inherent due to our very humanity. Our right to life and liberty, whether one believes that those rights come from God or not, can never be bestowed by men. For if men can bestow rights, then they are not rights at all, because they can just as easily be taken away. To believe then, that a group of men that some call "founders," could with the stroke of a pen grant rights to another group of men, is ludicrous.

Our rights to life and liberty are evident from the time of our very existence. These rights encompass all others, for without the right to life, and the freedom to sustain and protect that life; no other rights could possibly exist. Pieces of paper secretly drafted by politicians in the dark of night cannot give or protect rights, as those same politicians, or those who follow in their footsteps, could arbitrarily change the rules at any time of their choosing. For any set of rules to be valid, they first have to be accepted voluntarily by the individuals involved, and actively defended at every turn. But today, those individuals affected rely on a small group of corrupt politicians called "representatives," to act in their behalf, instead of taking responsibility for their own lot in life. That, in my opinion, is a recipe for tyranny.
 
Vague, poorly written,( maybe by illiterates), open to interpretation describe the 2nd amendment.
Congress, get off your lazy arses and fix this , if you can..
All too likely that they would make it worse, thanks to our extremists..
But in todays world, its ludicrous that the insane and semi-insane (me), be allowed to own deadly weapons.
 
Vague, poorly written,( maybe by illiterates), open to interpretation describe the 2nd amendment.
Congress, get off your lazy arses and fix this , if you can..
All too likely that they would make it worse, thanks to our extremists..
But in todays world, its ludicrous that the insane and semi-insane (me), be allowed to own deadly weapons.

you are ludicrous

the 2nd is prohibition on government .....it is not a right, how can government change the 2nd, since it is a prohibition on them.......as stated by the bill of rights itself.

that would be like a thief, being able to change the law, and make his crime no longer illegal.
 
Last edited:
...
the 2nd is prohibition on government .....it is not a right, how can government change the 2nd, since it is a prohibition on them.......as stated by the bill of rights itself.
...

So an armed militia that knows the Obama administration is dangerous to America and should be taken out needs its guns per the 2nd amendment. I think I understand.
 
So an armed militia that knows the Obama administration is dangerous to America and should be taken out needs its guns per the 2nd amendment. I think I understand.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its[ FEDERAL ]powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.


the bill of right are clauses which are declaratory and restrictive to the federal government, government cannot change restrictions which are to bind them.

as jefferson says, "the chains of the Constitution".....which bind that federal government
 
I'm a retired design engineer and I still thing like one. So, please explain what is "the character and nature of the citizenry at large"? Could it be just a neighbor hood, or the majority of a town or a state etc.

The ranks must be filled with citizens from all walks of life from the whole country. The cannot be filled only with those whose first loyalty is to the military.
 
It’s Unfit To Exist – LewRockwell.com


The Constitution Does Not Grant Rights!

I have in the past written about the folly of constitution worship here and here, but the widespread belief by most Americans that this document grants us our rights, and that it also is meant to protect our freedoms, is in my opinion absurd.

Natural rights, or any rights for that matter, are inherent due to our very humanity. Our right to life and liberty, whether one believes that those rights come from God or not, can never be bestowed by men. For if men can bestow rights, then they are not rights at all, because they can just as easily be taken away. To believe then, that a group of men that some call "founders," could with the stroke of a pen grant rights to another group of men, is ludicrous.

Our rights to life and liberty are evident from the time of our very existence. These rights encompass all others, for without the right to life, and the freedom to sustain and protect that life; no other rights could possibly exist. Pieces of paper secretly drafted by politicians in the dark of night cannot give or protect rights, as those same politicians, or those who follow in their footsteps, could arbitrarily change the rules at any time of their choosing. For any set of rules to be valid, they first have to be accepted voluntarily by the individuals involved, and actively defended at every turn. But today, those individuals affected rely on a small group of corrupt politicians called "representatives," to act in their behalf, instead of taking responsibility for their own lot in life. That, in my opinion, is a recipe for tyranny.

The author has confused interests with rights. Humans are born with natural interests. Communities declare rights to permit humans to pursue their interests.
 
Gun control is a hot issue, but it all comes down to the 2nd Amendment, which reads:

"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."

But what does that sentence actually guarantee?

The first part of the statement is a reason, it is not the right. People often mistake the two.
 
The author has confused interests with rights. Humans are born with natural interests. Communities declare rights to permit humans to pursue their interests.


sorry no... rights which are listed in the constitution, are listed else where before the constitution was ever created, the constitution of the u.s. ....grants, gives or creates no rights...at all...so people do not create rights...........care to show me, where any rights have been created by our government?
 
sorry no... rights which are listed in the constitution, are listed else where before the constitution was ever created, the constitution of the u.s. ....grants, gives or creates no rights...at all...so people do not create rights...........care to show me, where any rights have been created by our government?


The Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 
You asked for an example. Now you have one.

the civil right act is general........what rights are you talking about?...name 1.

the federal government cannot create a right, they can only recognize a right exist, and place a prohibition on government from violating that right, and that has to come from the court and reoconized.

federal law, does not create rights.
 
The right to be served at a lunch counter which otherwise would prohibit service on the basis of race.

sorry no! ,you have NO RIGHT TO BE SERVED......that is false.

it is u.s. code ...federal law, which states you cannot discriminate.......and that law is unconstitutional...why?

because to use the power of force to make one citizen serve another citizen is illegal according to the u.s. constitution ...13th amendment.....it is "involuntary servitude"...........there can be no involuntary servitude in the u.s. for a citizen unless that citizen is convicted of a crime.

13th.."Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

discrimination laws are not criminal law, they are statutory law......constitutional law overrides statutory law.

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.


Statutory law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
discrimination laws are not criminal law, they are statutory law......constitutional law overrides statutory law.

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.


Statutory law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you saying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional?
 
Are you saying the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional?

anything, that would force one person to serve another person against their will is involuntary servitude, and that is unconstitutional, becuase federal law, does not override constitutional law.

13th--""Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs""

While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.


please show me where the USSC as ruled you have right to be serve by another person...........that would be illogical......to believe you, .....yourself can --------->force another person to labor for you.
 
please show me where the USSC as ruled you have right to be serve by another person...........that would be illogical......to believe you, .....yourself can --------->force another person to labor for you.

Seriously. Are you saying a black person can be refused service for no reason other than being black because service would be involuntary servitude?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been law for almost 50 years. Why hasn't the Supreme Court overturned it?
 
Seriously. Are you saying a black person can be refused service for no reason other than being black because service would be involuntary servitude?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had been law for almost 50 years. Why hasn't the Supreme Court overturned it?

first question out of the 1964 act.....has the court declared right to be served .......out of it?..no!

that is exactly what i am saying ..................becuase it is constitutional law...no one can be forced to do something ,unless they commit a crime.

there is no right to be served, ...however there is a right to association..and as a business owner /person i have the right not to associate with you.

government does not create rights......the court recognizes rights which preexist.......rights the 9th amendment states do exist. not mentioned in the first 8 clauses of the bill of rights.
 
Yet another example of a self proclaimed RIGHT LIBERTARIAN going to great lengths to rationalize and justify discrimination against minorities.
 
that is exactly what i am saying ..................becuase it is constitutional law...no one can be forced to do something ,unless they commit a crime.

there is no right to be served, ...however there is a right to association..and as a business owner /person i have the right not to associate with you.

You should do some research.

You're wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom