• 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!

Background checks can’t prevent gun violence — because the NRA designed them to fail

Bodhisattva said:
Appeal to Tradition.

That is a logical FAIL.
Click to expand...
No, not an "appeal to tradition" a restatement of existing law. That particular law has been modified and amended throughout the years but is still in effect. The logic fail is on your side of the debate; you guys continually chatter "where's the militia, where's the militia . . .". Well, there it is, firmly ensconced in US Code. Oh, and let's not for get the Heller decision that rule gun ownership was an individual right. Got anything else.
 
Renae said:
Because criminals are a thing from 200 years ago and home invasions, muggings and other situations where being armed saves lives doesn't happen anymore... right?
Click to expand...


Because the militia was supposed to mount armed guards on every house to deter home invasions ?

Or provide 24/7 bodyguards to prevent muggings ?


Upon re-reading the 2nd Amendment - I see no mention of these as missions for the militia.
 
Rich2018 said:
Because the militia was supposed to mount armed guards on every house to deter home invasions ?

Or provide 24/7 bodyguards to prevent muggings ?


Upon re-reading the 2nd Amendment - I see no mention of these as missions for the militia.
Click to expand...

You know, I know you think it matters, that word militia, and you think you have some kind of intelligent angle on how the 2nd Amendment means what you want it to. Well it does not, you are wrong. Get over it. The 2nd Amendment is about you, me, any law abiding citizens right, to have access to weapons, like Fire Arms, as the founders understood a disarmed populace is the easiest for tyranny to thrive.
 
Renae said:
You know, I know you think it matters, that word militia, and you think you have some kind of intelligent angle on how the 2nd Amendment means what you want it to. Well it does not, you are wrong. Get over it. The 2nd Amendment is about you, me, any law abiding citizens right, to have access to weapons, like Fire Arms, as the founders understood a disarmed populace is the easiest for tyranny to thrive.
Click to expand...


No.

The 2nd amendment specifically justifies the right to bear arms in order that a "well regulated" militia might be formed to ensure the survival of the state.
 
Rich2018 said:
No.

The 2nd amendment specifically justifies the right to bear arms in order that a "well regulated" militia might be formed to ensure the survival of the state.
Click to expand...




Otherwise it would have said something like, in order to cut down rapes, murders, muggings and home invasions, the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
Rich2018 said:
No.

The 2nd amendment specifically justifies the right to bear arms in order that a "well regulated" militia might be formed to ensure the survival of the state.
Click to expand...

The militia doesn't have the right to keep and bear any arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom