• 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!

History and Purpose of the Second Amendment[W:192,794]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Yeeee -ep. They fall into their own illogical quick sand every - single - time.

They've been schooled on the militia system, natural rights AND the constitution and they still don't get it.

those who don' know a subject are hardly in a position to school those of us who actually have teaching credentials
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

All you need for self-defense in most situations is pepper spray. If you are in an exceptionally dangerous situation, like dealing with several bad guys in a blind dark alley in a bad part of town after dark, a small caliber pistol is more than enough.

No one needs a semiautomatic rifle with bump stocks for self-defense. The only thing that's good for is taking out over 600 people in the space of a few minutes. That's not self defense anymore. That's just ridiculous. You might as well say it's natural to have a battery of missile launchers in your backyard for self defense.

what you think we need is irrelevant and he didn't take out 600 people so stop lying. If civilian police "need" it for self defense against violent criminals, so do the rest of us
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

what you think we need is irrelevant and he didn't take out 600 people so stop lying. If civilian police "need" it for self defense against violent criminals, so do the rest of us

Civilian police have formal and rigorous training requirements. They undergo background checks for criminal and mental health history. The weapons issued to them are registered.

Your crazy neighbor Ed doesn't do any of those things. Make those things a requirement for him too and we can talk.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

I think you are getting a little confused on the topic here. I was responding to someone who said that some rights pre-exist government. Government is not there to protect them, he says. The Bill of Rights was written only to make sure that government does NOT interfere.

I was just pointing out that in nature, no rights pre-exist governmental protection. Not even the right to breathe. In nature, your right to arms only exists as long as there is no one with a bigger gun to take it away from you. Ditto for your right to breathe.

I understood exactly what you said and the argument. I completely as I explained disagree. These natural rights are rights that can only be taken away by force. Just because something can be taken by force makes it no less your right. As I said someone can try and take away your right to defence and they may even be successful. This does not mean you did not have that right.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Civilian police have formal and rigorous training requirements, and undergo background checks for criminal and mental health history. The weapons issued to them are registered.

Your crazy neighbor Ed doesn't do any of those things. Make those things a requirement for him too and we can talk.
stop lying. many private citizens have superior training and education than cops. Most cops are lousy shots. your argument is specious because you support a complete ban on private citizens having defensive weapons in THEIR OWN HOMES that cops can carry on the streets.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

I understood exactly what you said and the argument. I completely as I explained disagree. These natural rights are rights that can only be taken away by force. Just because something can be taken by force makes it no less your right. As I said someone can try and take away your right to defence and they may even be successful. This does not mean you did not have that right.

Without a means of enforcement, it doesn't matter what you think you may have a right to. I may tell you I have a right to stand on my head and spit nickels. Without a means of legal enforcement, it doesn't mean anything.

Ditto for guns. No one cares that you think you have a right to have a gun. If there is no legal protection for that right, you will have that right only as long as there is no one bigger than you around to take it away from you. Then, it wouldn't help even a little bit to explain your natural rights to him while he has his boot on your neck.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

I understood exactly what you said and the argument. I completely as I explained disagree. These natural rights are rights that can only be taken away by force. Just because something can be taken by force makes it no less your right. As I said someone can try and take away your right to defence and they may even be successful. This does not mean you did not have that right.

Said rights are only gained by force - don't forget that.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

oh sure you are

And - I'm not claiming it - THEY CLAIMED IT!! And it worked for 89 years!!

And ya'know? I've read through bill of rights AND the amendments, and nowhere do I see it written that an American has the "natural right" to self defense with any kind of gun he wants... straaaange...

Perhaps you can show me where it says that, because I just can't find it.

So it was morally acceptable then correct?
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

So it was morally acceptable then correct?

his position is that every gun owner should suffer the same idiotic laws that he in California lives under.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

stop lying. many private citizens have superior training and education than cops.

Most don't. And if they do, let them take a test to prove, like they do a driving test. We don't give any old dangerous equipment to anyone who asks for it: we don't give a formula 1 race car to someone with Alzheimer's and glaucoma. And we shouldn't be giving high powered semiautomatic weapons with bump stocks to potential schizophrenics and kooks.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Said rights are only gained by force - don't forget that.

According to those who are numb and don't live in a civilized society. Rights are not gained but force, they can only be taken by force. No surprise you got it backwards. Of course you seem to support tyranny of the masses so no surprise here.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Without a means of enforcement, it doesn't matter what you think you may have a right to. I may tell you I have a right to stand on my head and spit nickels. Without a means of legal enforcement, it doesn't mean anything.

Again you don't need legal enforcement from a government or governmental body. Rights can only be taken, not given as you already have them.

Ditto for guns. No one cares that you think you have a right to have a gun. If there is no legal protection for that right, you will have that right only as long as there is no one bigger than you around to take it away from you. Then, it wouldn't help even a little bit to explain your natural rights to him while he has his boot on your neck.

2nd amendment and or laws say different.

End of argument, lol.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Most don't. And if they do, let them take a test, like they do a driving test, to show it. We don't give any old dangerous equipment to anyone who asks for it: we don't give a formula 1 race car to someone with Alzheimer's and glaucoma. And we shouldn't be giving high powered semiautomatic weapons with bump stocks to potential schizophrenics and kooks.

so where do you draw the line. Cops' jobs give them special abilities-such as carrying those weapons in area other civilians cannot. But to say private citizens are not entitled to the same defensive weapons as cops is just plain stupid

so tell me, where do we draw the line. or are you in favor of making everyone who wants to own any kind of gun undergo a psychiatric evaluation and other testing

or do you just want to ban private citizens from owning any guns
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Again you don't need legal enforcement from a government or governmental body. Rights can only be taken, not given as you already have them.

So if government stops protecting your right to, say, vote, do you think you will still have that right? LOL.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

so where do you draw the line. Cops' jobs give them special abilities-such as carrying those weapons in area other civilians cannot. But to say private citizens are not entitled to the same defensive weapons as cops is just plain stupid

so tell me, where do we draw the line. or are you in favor of making everyone who wants to own any kind of gun undergo a psychiatric evaluation and other testing

or do you just want to ban private citizens from owning any guns

I would be OK with gun laws like they have in Israel. If any place knows about terrorism and security issues, it's them.

"Gun laws in Israel are comprehensive despite soldiers being allowed to carry their service weapons on or off duty. Civilians must obtain a firearms licence to lawfully acquire, possess, sell or transfer firearms and ammunition.

Only a small group of people are eligible for firearms licenses: certain retired military personnel, police officers or prison guards; residents of frontier towns (in the West Bank and the Golan Heights) or those who often work in such towns; and licensed hunters and animal-control officers. Age requirements vary: 20 or 21 for those who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 27 otherwise, and 45 for non-citizens. Firearm license applicants must have been a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years, pass a background check (criminal, health, and mental history), establish a genuine reason for possessing a firearm (such as self-defense, hunting, or sport), and pass a weapons-training course.[49] Around 40% of applications for firearms permits are rejected.[50]

Those holding firearms licenses must renew them and pass a shooting course every three years, and undergo psychological assessment at least once every six years. Security guards must pass these tests to renew their license to carry firearms belonging to their employers.[51] Applicants must demonstrate that they have a safe at their residence in which to keep the firearm. Permits are given only for personal use, and holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun and purchase an annual supply of 50 cartridges (although more may be purchased to replace rounds used at a firing range).[52]

In addition to private licenses of firearms, organizations can issue carry-licenses to their members or employees for activity related to that organization (e.g. security companies, shooting clubs, other workplaces). Members of officially recognized shooting clubs (e.g.: practical shooting, Olympic shooting) are eligible for personal licenses allowing them to possess additional firearms (small bore rifles, handguns, air rifles and air pistols) and ammunition after demonstrating a need and fulfilling minimum membership time and activity requirements. Unlicensed individuals who want to engage in practice shooting are allowed supervised use of handguns or rifles at firing ranges.

Most individuals who are licensed to possess handguns may carry them loaded in public, concealed or openly.[49]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Israel
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

So if government stops protecting your right to, say, vote, do you think you will still have that right? LOL.

Voting is not a right...

The Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” Voting is not a natural right.

Try again.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

I would be OK with gun laws like they have in Israel. If any place knows about terrorism and security issues, it's them.

those would be unconstitutional here.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Voting is not a right...

The Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” Voting is not a natural right.

Try again.


Which right appears most often in the Constitution's text?

It's "the right to vote."

So I ask again: if government does not protect "the right of all QUALIFIED citizens to vote", will they still have the right?
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

I know. But they make sense. And they work. Well.

different society so your claims are specious
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

different society so your claims are specious

Those laws are pragmatic and based on the realities and necessities of their environment and time: the state of firearms technology today in 21st century Israel. They are flexible enough to tailor the laws to suit their needs. They are not blinded and hamstrung by ideas of eternal and immutable "natural law" as written for an 18th century postcolonial America, and thinking that these are some kind of eternal laws of God and nature which must be adhered to blindly and unquestioningly, in all places, for all eternity, regardless of changes in that world.
 
Last edited:
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Which right appears most often in the Constitution's text?

It's "the right to vote."

So I ask again: if government does not protect "the right of all QUALIFIED citizens to vote", will they still have the right?

Not if they are (as I said) stopped by force. Force is the only way a right can be taken. You however do have that right from day 1, period. Do you need the government to enforce your right to life? No you don't. Can it however be taken by force? Yes. It's what we call tyranny.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Those laws are pragmatic and based on the realities and necessities of their environment and time: the state of firearms technology today in the 21st century world. They are flexible enough to tailor the laws to suit their needs. They are not blinded and hamstrung by ideas of eternal and immutable "natural law" as written for an 18th century postcolonial America, and thinking that these are some kind of eternal laws of God and nature which must be adhered to blindly and unquestioningly, in all places, for all eternity, regardless of changes in that world.

what oozing BS. our crime rate has been going down. the people in the USA with the highest rate of legal gun ownership have very low rates of gun violence.

what makes lefties clamor for gun control (when they tend to be lukewarm towards other solutions for dealing with violent criminals) is that they see it as a way of harassing people who vote against their leftwing interests
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Not if they are (as I said) stopped by force. Force is the only way a right can be taken. You however do have that right from day 1, period. Do you need the government to enforce your right to life? No you don't.

Sure I do. Without legal protection, My "rights" are only those things which I can force through myself: whether it's my right to life, or my right to take someone else's stuff. I would be the judge, jury, and executioner of "my rights". If you are strong enough, you will have lots of rights. If you're the little old lady living down the streets, I am afraid you will be out of luck on the "rights" front very quickly.
 
Re: History and Purpose of the Second Amendment

what oozing BS. our crime rate has been going down. the people in the USA with the highest rate of legal gun ownership have very low rates of gun violence.

what makes lefties clamor for gun control (when they tend to be lukewarm towards other solutions for dealing with violent criminals) is that they see it as a way of harassing people who vote against their leftwing interests

I don't know where you get that stuff. Places like Vermont, where Bernie Sanders is from, are the biggest gun toting states around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom