• 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!

The right to bear Arms? Not necefsarily.

Rob Larrikin said:
The changes in the final draft made it very confusing, so they weren't the result of deliberate 'editing'. They happened because the scribe was tired and the candlelight was poor, and because they didn't appear to matter at the time. They were of little importance then. Only after centuries of gun evolution and misinformed judges did they become important, and then VERY important. None of the scribes at the time could have imagined that a couple of commas and a few capital letters would matter at all, and Jefferson would have hardly noticed the errors.
Click to expand...
Your assertion is wrong on every level. The people are the militia. The militia was not a formed standing government entity. The militia consisted of appointed or elected leaders and 'the people'. The people were expected to keep firearms, be trained in their use, keep their firearms in good working order, and be adequately stocked and supplied to join and serve at a moments notice.

The rights of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

The people are the militia.

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right 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.”

“Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}” There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped”
 
Rob Larrikin said:
The fact that you refuse to answer them reveals a fanaticism that embarrasses you. A normal person would answer ‘no’ to A, C, D, E and F. In fact they would say, “Definitely not, under any circumstances.” We know your refusal to answer means ‘yes’, and that puts you way out there with history’s worst megalomaniacs.
Click to expand...

Wan said:
But he already explained why. The kind of bomb you are imagining, alone with nukes, would destroy the defender as well, so they are not truly good for defense.
Click to expand...

Rob Larrikin said:
Then why didn't he say 'no'?
Click to expand...

Wan said:
Lol wut? How would I know? I am not him.
Click to expand...

Then, to repeat; the fact that he refused to answer the questions reveals a fanaticism that embarrasses him. A normal person would have answered ‘no’ to A, C, D, E and F. In fact they would say, “Definitely not, under any circumstances.” His refusal to answer means ‘yes’, and that puts him way out there with history’s worst megalomaniacs.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
The changes in the final draft made it very confusing, so they weren't the result of deliberate 'editing'. They happened because the scribe was tired and the candlelight was poor, and because they didn't appear to matter at the time. They were of little importance then. Only after centuries of gun evolution and misinformed judges did they become important, and then VERY important. None of the scribes at the time could have imagined that a couple of commas and a few capital letters would matter at all, and Jefferson would have hardly noticed the errors.
Click to expand...

VanceMack said:
The people are the militia.
Click to expand...

Yes, ‘the people’ - not one anti-war hippy who likes big powerful guns (Homer Simpson). Most families in America do not want to have such a person living next door, especially if they dabble in drugs.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
The fact that you refuse to answer them reveals a fanaticism that embarrasses you. A normal person would answer ‘no’ to A, C, D, E and F. In fact they would say, “Definitely not, under any circumstances.” We know your refusal to answer means ‘yes’, and that puts you way out there with history’s worst megalomaniacs.
Click to expand...

The questions do not even make any sense as methods of defense. There is no need to answer them. Arguments of the extreme are fallacies.

Equivocating this with megalomania is a non-sequitur. I assume you are trying to use this as an insult of some kind. Both are fallacies.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Then why didn't he say 'no'?
Click to expand...

Because the question is irrelevant.

Assuming, for a moment, that a neighbor COULD construct such a bomb that destroys the Universe. Just how are you going to know or stop him? (Let's say its a very small bomb, say...the size of a cricket ball)
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Yes, ‘the people’ - not one anti-war hippy who likes big powerful guns (Homer Simpson). Most families in America do not want to have such a person living next door, especially if they dabble in drugs.
Click to expand...
Your feelings and wants are irrelevant when it comes to the Constitution and the rights of individuals.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Then, to repeat; the fact that he refused to answer the questions reveals a fanaticism that embarrasses him. A normal person would have answered ‘no’ to A, C, D, E and F. In fact they would say, “Definitely not, under any circumstances.” His refusal to answer means ‘yes’, and that puts him way out there with history’s worst megalomaniacs.
Click to expand...

Equivocating not answering irrelevant questions with fanaticism is also a non-sequitur. I assume you are trying to use this as an insult as well. Both are fallacies.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Yes, ‘the people’ - not one anti-war hippy who likes big powerful guns (Homer Simpson). Most families in America do not want to have such a person living next door, especially if they dabble in drugs.
Click to expand...

I happen to carry my gun most of the time. Sometimes openly, usually concealed. None of my neighbors are bothered by this.

Many of them carry as well!

We have a nice neighborhood. The kids that play in it are happy and healthy.

You live in Australia. Why should you not carry a knife?
 
VanceMack said:
Your feelings and wants are irrelevant when it comes to the Constitution and the rights of individuals.
Click to expand...

The right to self-defense is not granted by a constitution. The Constitution of the United States acknowledges that right and prohibits the federal government from passing any law to try to limit that right. The individual State constitutions do the same thing for each State of the Union.

The 2nd Amendment is not granting a right. It is simply reiterating the limited powers of the federal government which that document creates and defines. The federal government of the United States has no authority or right EXCEPT that which is specifically granted to them by the Constitution of the United States. No authority to limit guns or any other weapon was ever given to the government of the United States.

The right of self defense is inherent in the rights of Man as part of his rights to preserve his own existence.

The individual States of the Union also have that same right. This is the inherent right of each State to form militias, made up of their own citizens.

You are correct. No one, not even he, has the right (or even the capability) of preventing someone from protecting themselves.

In the end, a gun can appear anywhere, even in nations prohibiting guns completely.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
The right to self-defense is not granted by a constitution. The Constitution of the United States acknowledges that right and prohibits the federal government from passing any law to try to limit that right. The individual State constitutions do the same thing for each State of the Union.

The 2nd Amendment is not granting a right. It is simply reiterating the limited powers of the federal government which that document creates and defines. The federal government of the United States has no authority or right EXCEPT that which is specifically granted to them by the Constitution of the United States. No authority to limit guns or any other weapon was ever given to the government of the United States.

The right of self defense is inherent in the rights of Man as part of his rights to preserve his own existence.

The individual States of the Union also have that same right. This is the inherent right of each State to form militias, made up of their own citizens.

You are correct. No one, not even he, has the right (or even the capability) of preventing someone from protecting themselves.

In the end, a gun can appear anywhere, even in nations prohibiting guns completely.
Click to expand...
Self defense is a natural right. The Constitution guarantees the rights of 'the people' by limiting the powers of the government. We have gotten that reality so far skewed its scary. Literally. When people make decisions and form legal opinions based on personal perspective and not Constitutional reality, all rights are subject to violation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom