• 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!

How do we keep...

The federal government has no power or authority granted by the Constitution or Second Amendment to regulate firearms - it has, how, assumed the authority and the power through various actions of Congress and SCOTUS to have real, actual power and authority to regulate firearms. If you don't think so, feel free to parade in front of BATFE with an unregistered SBR.

Correct. The federal government has exceeded their authority. They are playing a dangerous game. The further from the constitution they deviate, the closer they come to their own destruction.

Yes...self defense INCLUDES self defense from a rogue government.
 
That's not what you said. You said Congress can impose any law if it's necessary and proper to support a well regulated Militia. If Congress says that the makeup of the militia is just 20 men, and they are to be armed with swords, then they have no right to be armed with firearms.

If they can make all semiauto firearms class II, they can make all firearms class II, or simply ban them if banning them is "necessary and proper".

Are semiauto weapons in common use for lawful purposes?

You're missing my point... the 2nd Amendment's prefatory clause can't overshadow the right to keep and bear arms - but it does have an effect on the right. That effect can be much smaller than the right, or it can be just as big as the right - but it can't be bigger than the right. If Congress passed a law limiting the militia to 20 men, then everyone else would still have the right to keep and bear arms - the right doesn't disappear for people who aren't in the militia just because they aren't in the militia. Similarly, those 20 men don't surrender their 2nd Amendment rights just because they have been chosen by the militia - they would still have the same right to keep and bear arms as everyone else.

That being said, what if Congress passed a law that says obtaining a firearm automatically makes you a militia member, regardless of age or gender? Well, if that's the case then everyone who owns a gun is a militia member and subject to the discipline imposed by Congress, are they not?
 
This is all just opinion that is not shared by anyone in power
That's not opinion that's fact. As Into the Night pointed out,the federal govt. was created by the states and given a few rights [emphasis on few]such as national defense and a monetary system for example and hands off of the BoRs. And as far as those in power of course they don't share you and yours opinion.
 
...self defense from a rogue government.
Just who is this rough government? Last I looked it was still us the people through representation we the people freely choose. In fact government is us, our brothers and sisters, parents, uncles and aunts, friends, neighbors and all serve at our pleasure. We the free people still have the power, but to be fair, sadly many do not exercise that power, which is also a choice for a free person.
 
You're missing my point... the 2nd Amendment's prefatory clause can't overshadow the right to keep and bear arms - but it does have an effect on the right. That effect can be much smaller than the right, or it can be just as big as the right - but it can't be bigger than the right. If Congress passed a law limiting the militia to 20 men, then everyone else would still have the right to keep and bear arms - the right doesn't disappear for people who aren't in the militia just because they aren't in the militia. Similarly, those 20 men don't surrender their 2nd Amendment rights just because they have been chosen by the militia - they would still have the same right to keep and bear arms as everyone else.

That being said, what if Congress passed a law that says obtaining a firearm automatically makes you a militia member, regardless of age or gender? Well, if that's the case then everyone who owns a gun is a militia member and subject to the discipline imposed by Congress, are they not?

Only when the militia is mustered - not 24/7. Congress can tell you what you must, can or cannot possess while the militia is mustered, but not what you can keep at home or use in your off time. A militia member under active muster could also lose the right of free speech, free association and freedom from unreasonable search - that right would still exist for that citizen elsewhen and elsewhere.
 

Attachments

  • 2ndamend.jpg
    2ndamend.jpg
    12.3 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
Only when the militia is mustered - not 24/7. Congress can tell you what you must, can or cannot possess while the militia is mustered, but not what you can keep at home or use in your off time. A militia member under active muster could also lose the right of free speech, free association and freedom from unreasonable search - that right would still exist for that citizen elsewhen and elsewhere.

When the militia (or a part thereof) is mustered into Federal service, then Congress gains the power to govern the militia (ie, they are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice).... the powers to organize and discipline the militia, however, exist regardless of whether the militia has been mustered or not.
 
"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."

One.

View attachment 67241485

You're interpreting the Second Amendment as if everything before the first comma didn't exist.
 
When the militia (or a part thereof) is mustered into Federal service, then Congress gains the power to govern the militia (ie, they are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice).... the powers to organize and discipline the militia, however, exist regardless of whether the militia has been mustered or not.

That's an interesting claim. What do you have to support it? Where do you see that Congress has the power to declare everyone in the militia and then use that status to restrict their individual right to keep and bear arms? Heller said that the right is independent of any militia status nor in any attempt to impose restrictions upon firearm ownership has Congress or any state ever extended the militia to include everyone that whose right they wished to restrict.
 
You're interpreting the Second Amendment as if everything before the first comma didn't exist.

No, you asked how many sentences there are in the Second Amendment. Everything before the comma reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". That's not a sentence, it's a sentence fragment. The Second Amendment is but a single sentence.

You read Heller, right?

"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment."
 
That's an interesting claim. What do you have to support it? Where do you see that Congress has the power to declare everyone in the militia and then use that status to restrict their individual right to keep and bear arms? Heller said that the right is independent of any militia status nor in any attempt to impose restrictions upon firearm ownership has Congress or any state ever extended the militia to include everyone that whose right they wished to restrict.

Here's the relevant provision of Article I, Section 8:

[The Congress shall have Power...] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Congress always has the power to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia... governing only comes into play when it is mustered - notice the "and" there.

Congress' power to make everyone a member of the militia derives from it's Constitutional power to organize. It's power to regulate the arms comes from it's power to discipline.
 
No, you asked how many sentences there are in the Second Amendment. Everything before the comma reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". That's not a sentence, it's a sentence fragment. The Second Amendment is but a single sentence.

You read Heller, right?

"(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment."

I'm the one advocating the prefatory clause.... he was saying it didn't exist.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment contains only one sentence...which only bolsters the claim that the need for a well Regulated Militia and the right to keep and bear arms are intertwined.
 
Here's the relevant provision of Article I, Section 8:



Congress always has the power to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia... governing only comes into play when it is mustered - notice the "and" there.

Congress' power to make everyone a member of the militia derives from it's Constitutional power to organize. It's power to regulate the arms comes from it's power to discipline.

How does the power to "discipline" the militia imply that the government has any power to restrict the arms of the People, which as I recall, "shall not be infringed"?
 
I'm the one advocating the prefatory clause.... he was saying it didn't exist.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment contains only one sentence...which only bolsters the claim that the need for a well Regulated Militia and the right to keep and bear arms are intertwined.

Yes, ensuring that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is a necessary step to ensure that a well-regulated militia can exist.
 
How does the power to "discipline" the militia imply that the government has any power to restrict the arms of the People, which as I recall, "shall not be infringed"?

The right isn't being infringed... the people would still have the right to keep and bear arms... just the arms that the Congress decides are necessary and proper for the militia.
 
The right isn't being infringed... the people would still have the right to keep and bear arms... just the arms that the Congress decides are necessary and proper for the militia.

That's an infringement. It's telling that you believe that it is not.
 
You know what else is necessary? Congressional-mandated organization and discipline.

Is it really? Has the security of the free state been maintained with the current organization, arming and discipline of the militia as described in 10 USC 311?
 
That's an infringement. It's telling that you believe that it is not.

You bet your ass it's telling.... it's telling that I'm sick and tired of having classrooms of six year-olds gunned down so a bunch of weekend wannabe warriors can go out with their semi-auto rifles and blast away at tin cans. So I figure, fine... if originalists want to play "let's pretend it's 1792" game, then that's the game we're going to play. The Founding Fathers put the prefatory clause within the Second Amendment because they didn't want gun ownership to get out of control and cause a ruckus like what happened in Shays Rebellion. Want to know why Madison's first draft didn't stick? Blame Daniel Shays & Co. So they put the right to keep and bear arms within the Constitution with the provisio that Congress could pull in on the reins if matters got out of hand.

Guess what? With gun violence out of control the way it is today, matters have gotten out of hand. It's time for Congress to act.
 
Back
Top Bottom