• 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

CLAX1911 said:
I don't know what the unorganized militia is. Unorganized militia doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

this is why, i don't take right wingers seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I'll wait for your return then...as it is not MY responsibility to prove YOUR assertion. ;)

Terms also need to be defined, because Jefferson was not talking about "gun violence" in general, (including suicides, accidental discharges, gang warfare, etc.), but rather violence directed by an assailant against the common citizen.

When I see the facts you provide, I can then evaluate them and see what if any counter-evidence I could provide.

Meanwhile, I hope you are enjoying your holiday. :)
Click to expand...

Pardon me for sticking my nose where it doesn't belong but I was following you guy's respectful, insightful and informative debate when a particular statement came out. (See bolded above.)

I think that's one of the problems we have today (Not trying to pick on the good Captain because we Captain's stick together, <wink> But the statement was worthy of my shared opinion and it was the good Captain that presented the statement. But this opinion is not pointed at him, per se, in as much as it is pointed to society in general, myself included.)

Instead of saying, "When I see the facts you provide, I can then evaluate them and see if they, in any way, influence my opinion," he said, "When I see the facts you provide, I can then evaluate them and see what if any counter-evidence I could provide."


Therein lies a problem we all share worth pondering.

Even before said "facts" are presented it is already assumed they are wrong or that there will be efforts made to prove/intrepret them as being wrong. No one enters the debate with any intention of personal intellectual growth. It is always entered with a "I'm right, you're wrong." And, all too often, when said "facts" allows one poster the upper-hand in the debate, the debate usually slips in to insults and diversion. (Or gets blamed on Obama. LOL!)

The poster said that, if I read it correctly, that even when he is presented with the facts from the person he is talking to, he will attempt to prepare his "facts" to prove him wrong. Already

The point I am trying to make is, nobody is right if every body is wrong. Today's people are locked in the heads that they are always right and any one who disagrees is always wrong.

"Show me your facts and I will try to prove you wrong." I guess people are rooted in their beliefs and they really should evaluate facts when formulation opinion. But it just seems to me that the wiser approach would be to go in to a debate with a more open minded position. I know, over the years, posters contributions have altered my pre-disposed opinions. And I think I'm smarter for it. I think we should all consider entering debates with the willingness to change our minds should our minds need changing based on logic, the dictates of reasons and actual facts. Facts have no bias. Facts are simply facts. When it comes to facts, the cards fall where they may. We cannot, and must stop, cherry-picking and manipulating facts that re-assure us of our positions. There is no personal growth in that. It does society no favors either.
 
spud_meister said:
I can't provide all the evidence, I'm currently on holidays. However, for a brief overview, I'd suggest comparing US states in terms of gun ownership and violent crime, you'll see there's no correlation at all.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making the case against gun haters. I applaud you sir! :applaud
 
danielpalos said:
this is why, i don't take right wingers seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.
Click to expand...

The Militia is made up of people, but the People are not the Militia. Try looking up what well regulated meant in the 18th Century. Regarding Constitutional Law, it appears you had no problem with a leftwing lawyer who did not enforce the laws he didn't agree with, such as immigration law or govt security regulations.
 
American said:
The Militia is made up of people, but the People are not the Militia. Try looking up what well regulated meant in the 18th Century. Regarding Constitutional Law, it appears you had no problem with a leftwing lawyer who did not enforce the laws he didn't agree with, such as immigration law or govt security regulations.
Click to expand...

lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...
 
danielpalos said:
lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
Click to expand...

Read the Militia law, it will tell there is a certain segment of the population. I'm well aware of mason quote. But thanks for adding your support for militias and the 2nd Amendment; an armed populace.
 
danielpalos said:
lol. nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.
Click to expand...

Caetano v Massachusetts: "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States"

Caetano was a 9-0 decision.
 
Rucker61 said:
Caetano v Massachusetts: "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States"

Caetano was a 9-0 decision.
Click to expand...

so what; Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
 
danielpalos said:
so what; Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Congress can infringe the arms the Militia keeps and bears at any time. That's an unequivocal enumerated power. Your interpretation simply isn't true.
 
danielpalos said:
so what; Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Which SCOTUS decision is that based on?
 
Rucker61 said:
Congress can infringe the arms the Militia keeps and bears at any time. That's an unequivocal enumerated power. Your interpretation simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your point is. Well regulated militia get their prescription for wellness of regulation, from our federal Congress.
 
spud_meister said:
Why factor out thug-on-thug crime? Are these thugs not armed?
Click to expand...

LOL! You are truly confused.

Thug on good citizen violence is crime.

Thug on thug violence is an unintended public service and free pest extermination function.
 
danielpalos said:
so what; nothing but judicial activism.

Our Second Amendment should be read, literally; in any conflict of laws.
Click to expand...

The 2A expresses a "right of the people to..." not a "right of the militia to ...". It is obvious to all that the BoR was designed to limit (federal) government power rather than to extend or enhance it. Perhaps it was judicial activism which extended the BoR protections to apply to the several state governments but denying that the 2A established a "right of the people to..." is now completely pointless.
 
Captain America said:
The point I am trying to make is, nobody is right if every body is wrong. Today's people are locked in the heads that they are always right and any one who disagrees is always wrong.
Click to expand...

I think the last person who changed his mind on gun control is on display in a museum somewhere.
 
danielpalos said:
this is why, i don't take right wingers seriously about Constitutional law, or economics.

The People are the Militia. You are either, well regulated or you are not.
Click to expand...

No the people are not the militia. If you don't take right-wingers seriously because they don't believe stupid s*** like that then your metric is ****ed.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No the people are not the militia. If you don't take right-wingers seriously because they don't believe stupid s*** like that then your metric is ****ed.
Click to expand...

this is why, nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law.

The People are the Militia.
 
danielpalos said:
so what; Only well regulated militia are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

You can't be more wrong all you have to do is read the freaking text. I'll go ahead and present it to you and you can apologize.

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.

You see where it says the right of the people I folded and and underlined it for you. Notice it does not say the right of the militia. The only thing it says about the militia is that it's necessary for a free state.

And if the people and the militia were the same thing why is it listing them differently here?

Did you seriously not read it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom