• 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!

Gun Control: Thomas Jefferson's Opinion

jet57 said:
You're referring to ME as right-wing??

:lamo

That's rich.

Your quote from NY and is a NY statement from their Constitution; not California or Missouri... Your quote is wholly out of context and has no ascension in this discussion: you don;t know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment, that makes it a States' sovereign right.
 
danielpalos said:
We have a Second Amendment, that makes it a States' sovereign right.
Click to expand...

The militia, the individual right is federal. Your quote is still way out of context.
 
danielpalos said:
nope; it is a limit on federal authority regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no.... Your comment is way out of context.
 
danielpalos said:
in what way? Our Second Amendment is a States' sovereign right.
Click to expand...

Last time: I said that the country is fighting now over the second and THAT is a problem we have with the second. This NY nonsense is out of context.
 
jet57 said:
Last time: I said that the country is fighting now over the second and THAT is a problem we have with the second. This NY nonsense is out of context.
Click to expand...

We don't need The Wizard, for this one.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...

You claim it is a problem. I see no problem, only a lack of execution of the law.
 
The right to bear arms was mostly about militias keeping the government in check. That's why the 2nd specifically mentions militias. In order for a volunteer militia to function, the populace at large has to have access to arms, so that they can train and join the militia. I think if people want to own a bunch of high powered rifles, they should be obliged to have membership with their local militia. Otherwise what's the point? You're stocking weapons just because it's fun? You don't need a semi-automatic to go hunting.

Many states have pathetic militias. If it came down to it, the government could take them out with minimal effort. Given how bloated our governnment has become with power and cronyism, the militias have failed.

The pinnacle of the 2nd Amendment is a gun-owning population that is actively involved in politics and keeping their government's powers in check by defending fellow civilians from incursions, regardless of their political lean. That ship set sail a long time ago though. Liberals and Conservatives will cheer as their political enemies are unjustly jackbooted, simply because it stokes their revenge.

We don't even have the basic culture of safety around guns anymore. People are buying them and letting them sit around for their kids to grab and accidentally shoot themselves with. Forget militias... the fundamental respect for arms is dwindling.

The solution is not to make the government train civilians in firearms. They're not going to put resources into a project that fuels dissent against their power. That's OUR job.
 
HowardBThiname said:
So many times, I hear the argument that the Founders only meant for firearms to be carried as part of an organized militia, but that's not accurate.

Jefferson included the following quote in his book, "Legal Commonplace Book." He was not the original author -- Cesare Beccaria wrote the original sentiments in 1764. For anyone who questions what the Founders meant by the 2nd Amendment, the following should clear it up.



https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation
Click to expand...

Yet if anybody told Jefferson that some day kids would be shooting up their classrooms on a regular basis, he would probably be shocked.

It's not just about black and white arguments about criminals vs. victims anymore. Back in Jefferson's day, people got held up for robberies way more often than they were shot down in a shooting gallery massacre. He never would've foreseen a day when our own children were turning on one another.

The times have changed. The antiquated arguments no longer work, so I don't know why people keep looking to the Founding Fathers for guidance. The only thing that helps with now is legal precedent. The FF would not have been able to comprehend the social problems of our current day, the way our government has grown well beyond its original intent, or any one of the thousands of other variables of the 21st century.

Fact is... we have clearly come to a point where the Constitution can no longer guide us. I'm not saying the 2nd should be changed or abolished. I'm saying that it's too vague to guide the current situation. We need new solutions, not old ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom