• 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!

I have misunderstood the 2nd Amendment

VanceMack said:
We aint them.

Do you know people in our military? Do you know which side we tend to come down on?
Click to expand...

We aint them is not a scientific answer or even plausible. So let me say you have an immovable belief and I am not going to waste time on pointless discussion.

I'll believe you if you can give me one verifiable reason why it will never happen.

Believe me you are them as the only Americans who are not are the Native Americans.
 
Rucker61 said:
The Second Militia Act of 1792, enacted 6 months after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, do so:

"The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. 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."


The Militia Act of 1792
Click to expand...

Which has what to do with the right of the people to bear arms. Is people only some age bracket? The organised militia may well have had age restrictions but that is not the people.
 
VanceMack said:
This might help.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Again...we are our own worst enemy. We have allowed the federal government to continue to codify and limit the defined nature of the militia. What was once "all able bodied males" then became all able bodied males under 65 and is now all able bodied males aged 17-45 and females that are voluntary members of the guard. This could easily be used against citizens.
Click to expand...

Then this reasoning would exclude females which is clearly not the intent.

The more we try and massage the constitution into fitting some preconceived ideology or convenient definition we like the more we constrict and constrain our own laws.

The people simply means everyone. Then we have the "do you want babies to have guns" cry which is nothing more than an emotional appeal devoid of even common sense. Babies and children are the parents responsibility. You cannot make laws for babies and children to comply with.

We are our own worst enemy because we allow government to educate us and teach our children nothing of the value of our rights or the fact it is our responsibility to defend them.
 
Crimefree said:
Which has what to do with the right of the people to bear arms. Is people only some age bracket? The organised militia may well have had age restrictions but that is not the people.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the right of the people to bear arms. That right is totally unconnected with militia service. Are you familiar with US v Cruikshank?
 
Crimefree said:
Then this reasoning would exclude females which is clearly not the intent.

The more we try and massage the constitution into fitting some preconceived ideology or convenient definition we like the more we constrict and constrain our own laws.

The people simply means everyone. Then we have the "do you want babies to have guns" cry which is nothing more than an emotional appeal devoid of even common sense. Babies and children are the parents responsibility. You cannot make laws for babies and children to comply with.

We are our own worst enemy because we allow government to educate us and teach our children nothing of the value of our rights or the fact it is our responsibility to defend them.
Click to expand...
I agree that the verbiage from the US Code should be changed to describe all men and women as members of the unorganized militia. Laws matter. They just do.
 
Crimefree said:
We aint them is not a scientific answer or even plausible. So let me say you have an immovable belief and I am not going to waste time on pointless discussion.

I'll believe you if you can give me one verifiable reason why it will never happen.

Believe me you are them as the only Americans who are not are the Native Americans.
Click to expand...
Its a factual statement. If you actually knew us you would know what I am saying is true.
 
Rucker61 said:
It has nothing to do with the right of the people to bear arms. That right is totally unconnected with militia service. Are you familiar with US v Cruikshank?
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

I don't need a court to interpret the constitution for me. It's 27 simple words that anyone with a dictionary can interpret. :lol:

I cannot understand how the first clause is applied to the second as some kind of defining portion. It's a preamble, a justification not a limitation.

Because of this requirement we need this right. The requirement in no way defines the right. Why should it?

I like to take an interpretation and say ok if that is correct then write the 2A with that in mind. If it is close great if not it has to be wrong.
 
VanceMack said:
Its a factual statement. If you actually knew us you would know what I am saying is true.
Click to expand...

"If you actually knew us you would know what I am saying is true" is not very scientific. It really is an emotional appeal and as such is irrelevant for any number of reasons.

You have yet to show it is a fact or it has any significance. Do you not know when you have nothing? Exactly what is the magic you claim Americans have. It certainly is not the ability to spot and react to the propaganda of hate and fear which is the driving force of such events or the actions of government as the stepping stones are put in place. Do not tell me they are going to rise up because that is patently wrong and can be proven so. I am not like you winging my rebuttal.

I ask again

I'll believe you if you can give me one verifiable reason why it will never happen.
 
VanceMack said:
I agree that the verbiage from the US Code should be changed to describe all men and women as members of the unorganized militia. Laws matter. They just do.
Click to expand...

Sure laws matter and should never be constructed to diminish or limit the supreme law, the constitution. Perhaps that is where the problem lies. I'm going to ask if you want me to accept that laws are supreme to our rights?
 
A well organised, trained and armed male population of military service age is necessary for the security of a free state,

Anyone have a more correct interpretation?
 
Last edited:
Crimefree said:
"If you actually knew us you would know what I am saying is true" is not very scientific. It really is an emotional appeal and as such is irrelevant for any number of reasons.

You have yet to show it is a fact or it has any significance. Do you not know when you have nothing? Exactly what is the magic you claim Americans have. It certainly is not the ability to spot and react to the propaganda of hate and fear which is the driving force of such events or the actions of government as the stepping stones are put in place. Do not tell me they are going to rise up because that is patently wrong and can be proven so. I am not like you winging my rebuttal.

I ask again

I'll believe you if you can give me one verifiable reason why it will never happen.
Click to expand...
I'll say again...if you think the US military would support a despotic ruler and overthrow the government and Constitution...you dont know us. We dont swear oaths to despots...we swear oaths to the Constitution and Country.

We arent Russia. We arent China. We arent Korea. You dont know us.
 
Crimefree said:
Sure laws matter and should never be constructed to diminish or limit the supreme law, the constitution. Perhaps that is where the problem lies. I'm going to ask if you want me to accept that laws are supreme to our rights?
Click to expand...
Laws are used against citizens, and with the specific verbiage of the 2nd Amendment, the US Code verbiage could support enhanced restrictions against American citizens.

We have never had a staright up Supreme Court decision declaring definitively what the 2nd Amendment is. Thats why we have to keep fighting new cases. We agree what it SHOULD mean. We agree what it DOES mean. Unfortunately there are enough rats in political offices and enough leftist judges in federal positions that those restrictions ARE imposed...on a regular basis.
 
devildavid said:
What is your take on the use of the words "well regulated"?

Prior to writing the Constitution, there was an uprising called Shays Rebellion. The members of that group referred to themselves as regulators, in that they felt the government was not working on their behalf and needed regulating. This uprising was put down by force by the Massachusetts government (funded by private merchants), and prompted Washington and others to create the Constitution and a stronger central government. Perhaps they were thinking about this uprising when they wrote the words 'well regulated". And perhaps they were also hypocritical, as they used force to stop an uprising against the government of Massachusetts. So I question, what did the founders really want?
Click to expand...

Why do you assume the word "regulated" has only a single use? Tell me how the state is hypocritical when using force. In fact the 2nd Amendment affirms just such a right in the first part of the clause.
 
TurtleDude said:
The most important points

1) the federal government was never intended to have ANY power to regulate, restrict or impinge on what arms private citizens could own
2) the second amendment was recognizing a right the founders believed all men had from the start of human existence: the natural right of self defense.

3) those who claim that the right only vests upon someone joining a militia are completely ignorant of the entire foundation of natural law that the constitution is based upon
Click to expand...

On #1 just quite the opposite. The federal government was to ensure a well armed militia while under its jurisdiction, because an ineffective army would be counterproductive. Thus the argument could be made that government actions should always be supportive of proper arms and training. Thus the power given in Art I Sect 8 "to raise and SUPPORT armies...."
 
American said:
On #1 just quite the opposite. The federal government was to ensure a well armed militia while under its jurisdiction, because an ineffective army would be counterproductive. Thus the argument could be made that government actions should always be supportive of proper arms and training. Thus the power given in Art I Sect 8 "to raise and SUPPORT armies...."
Click to expand...

you are not contradicting what I said-that the federal government was never given any power to restrict, or impede the ownership of private arms by private citizens
 
TurtleDude said:
you are not contradicting what I said-that the federal government was never given any power to restrict, or impede the ownership of private arms by private citizens
Click to expand...

I know I'm not, I was agreeing with you. The federal government control over the militia was only intended to arm and support them, not disarm them; as someone has put forth.
 
I was a bit clumsy, but Art I Sect 8 is the only place giving power of the govt over militias. And even there, there is no wording that could reasonably be construed to mean disarming anyone.
 
American said:
Why do you assume the word "regulated" has only a single use? Tell me how the state is hypocritical when using force. In fact the 2nd Amendment affirms just such a right in the first part of the clause.
Click to expand...
"The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” - James Madison

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe

Well regulated was clear then as now. There was a structure in place. The body of the people owned and trained at arms. When/if needed...the militia (the people) was called.
 
VanceMack said:
I'll say again...if you think the US military would support a despotic ruler and overthrow the government and Constitution...you dont know us. We dont swear oaths to despots...we swear oaths to the Constitution and Country.

We arent Russia. We arent China. We arent Korea. You dont know us.
Click to expand...

Apparently I'm dealing with a recording or parrot "We arent Russia. We arent China. We arent Korea", has already been refuted. You have not shown you are any different when it comes to obedience and unwillingness to challenge government. If you are different you have yet to prove it.

Try not to repeat refuted claims. It's annoying and shows you have nothing.

Care to tell me why the US is currently fighting a war? I do not want the absolutely idiotic it's terrorists....

Care to tell me which divisions of the US armed forces confiscated guns in Louisiana at gun point? Can you show me one single soldier who said no? Now this is just one example of which there are many.

If you think governments forces are going to save you you are doing no better than China, Russia, Korea, Turkey, Rwanda

You are not reading what I post and think BS will do. Give me a verifiable reason like I asked or accept you are wrong. Change your attitude and get on with ensuring it can never happen by knowing what to do. That is what I would expect from people who think they are better. Are you?
 
VanceMack said:
Laws are used against citizens, and with the specific verbiage of the 2nd Amendment, the US Code verbiage could support enhanced restrictions against American citizens.

We have never had a staright up Supreme Court decision declaring definitively what the 2nd Amendment is. Thats why we have to keep fighting new cases. We agree what it SHOULD mean. We agree what it DOES mean. Unfortunately there are enough rats in political offices and enough leftist judges in federal positions that those restrictions ARE imposed...on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

The Supreme court is subservient to the peoples law and decisions.

I'm going to ask if you want me to accept that laws are supreme to our rights?
 
Crimefree said:
Apparently I'm dealing with a recording or parrot "We arent Russia. We arent China. We arent Korea", has already been refuted. You have not shown you are any different when it comes to obedience and unwillingness to challenge government. If you are different you have yet to prove it.

Try not to repeat refuted claims. It's annoying and shows you have nothing.

Care to tell me why the US is currently fighting a war? I do not want the absolutely idiotic it's terrorists....

Care to tell me which divisions of the US armed forces confiscated guns in Louisiana at gun point? Can you show me one single soldier who said no? Now this is just one example of which there are many.

If you think governments forces are going to save you you are doing no better than China, Russia, Korea, Turkey, Rwanda

You are not reading what I post and think BS will do. Give me a verifiable reason like I asked or accept you are wrong. Change your attitude and get on with ensuring it can never happen by knowing what to do. That is what I would expect from people who think they are better. Are you?
Click to expand...
You are dealing with someone with a lifetime of experience of living in the military. If you think we are ANYTHING like those other countries you are in a word...a 'moron'. Sorry...I cant put it any other way.
 
Crimefree said:
The Supreme court is subservient to the peoples law and decisions.

I'm going to ask if you want me to accept that laws are supreme to our rights?
Click to expand...
And what was the single greatest concern for most people going into this election?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom