• 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!

[W:963] The Complete Moderate's Guide to Gun Control

Wayne Jr

Wayne Jr

bis vincit qui se vincit
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2018
Messages
7,722
Reaction score
1,931
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian


I welcome your thoughts on this video. I find it to be well researched and accurate.
 
Wayne Jr said:


I welcome your thoughts on this video. I find it to be well researched and accurate.
Click to expand...


It’s not it only seems that way because he told you it was.

He claimed the founding fathers never talked about gun ownership in an individual sense

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -Samuel Adams

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -Patrick Henry

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -George Mason

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson
 
Crovax said:
It’s not it only seems that way because he told you it was.

He claimed the founding fathers never talked about gun ownership in an individual sense

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” -Samuel Adams

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -Patrick Henry

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -George Mason

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

He said the statements, as you quote, were always in reference to state militias. Would you care to cite the entire conversation of each quote you gave so that everyone can place those quotes in their proper context?

I thought it was interesting that "god given rights" are open to human revision.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:


I welcome your thoughts on this video. I find it to be well researched and accurate.
Click to expand...


The man says gun rights come from the government. So what is the problem? Some say the Constitution does not grant individual gun rights, and yet SCOTUS struck down DC's gun ban law, so which is it? Are Americans allowed to own guns or not? Yes, for now the rights of Americans to own guns has not been eliminated for hundreds of years.
 
Wayne Jr said:
He said the statements, as you quote, were always in reference to state militias. Would you care to cite the entire conversation of each quote you gave so that everyone can place those quotes in their proper context?

I thought it was interesting that "god given rights" are open to human revision.
Click to expand...

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
Click to expand...

Talks about both militia AND citizens.

Another thing to consider is that the militia was considered to be everyone (as evidenced by George Mason's quote there). If everyone is considered as part of the militia then wouldn't it stand to reason that everyone would have a right to own a gun? That even if you were correct that the quotes always reference militias that since it was thought that everyone is a part of the militia then they were talking about both militia and individuals at the same time? In other words they were both one and the same.
 
Problems with this "moderate argument" are:

1. Incorrect assumption that the Constitution, and thus government(s) "grant's rights." The Constitution was written to organize and grant power to the Federal government. The Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) was added to protect Individual Rights from violation by that new government.

2. Incorrect assumption that the Declaration of Independence does not inform us as to the purpose and limitations on ANY government, and what rights citizens always retain in relation to any government. He failed to recognize that individuals retain the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness AND the expressed right to rise up and rebel against tyranny. How does one go about enforcing one's right to life, liberty, happiness, and rebellion if not by a right to keep and bear arms?

3. Incorrect understanding of history. The very first rebellion after the new nation was formed was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791; a citizen's rebellion against what they considered an unfair tax. It was not a "State Militia" uprising, but simply that of common citizens who opposed this tax. It was opposed by State Militia's called up at the request of Washington, and led by him.

4. Failure to understand the attitudes of the period. I've argued about the paradigm of that time in a separate post, i.e. that the people of that era always believed that it was an individual right to self-preservation first, and a resource to raise forces to defend the State and the Nation second.
Captain Adverse said:
Well, your disagreement notwithstanding....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:


I welcome your thoughts on this video. I find it to be well researched and accurate.
Click to expand...


The basic premise seems to be that technology and the lack of formal militia use/service render the 2A moot (able to be ignored in the name of public safety?). The idea that the 2A means whatever bans, restrictions or government sanctioned reasons may be added by the (Australian style?) government are OK defeats the very purpose of the 2A's express limitation on government power.

Comparing a right to a state issued privilege shows how wrong the 'moderate' OP link idea is. The BoR was included only to assure the people that government power had clear limits yet the 'moderate' OP link purports that these limits may be changed by the (Australian style?) government with no need to amend the constitution. This is the main reason that we have only the SCOTUS to stop the federal government from institutiung a national gun permitted feature list, national gun registry and national gun licenesing system.

No mention was ever made as to why 10 (not 12, 15 or 17) rounds is considered, by the 'moderate' OP speaker, to be the (constitutional?) divide between a 'high capacity' magazine and a 'protected capacity' magazine. Basically, since the 1994 AWB was never found to be unconstituional it is now a seen as the 'logical starting point' for national gun laws that are to be much more restrictive (Austarlian style?) - giving much credence to the 'slippery slope' predictions often cited with any such 'resaonabe restriction' laws.
 
Wayne Jr said:
He said the statements, as you quote, were always in reference to state militias. Would you care to cite the entire conversation of each quote you gave so that everyone can place those quotes in their proper context?
Click to expand...

This line from the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 is a good example. It's also part of the proposed BOR that the Pennsvlvania delegation brought to the Constitutional Convention:

"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

If the right to bear arms was understood to be limited to militia, why did the majority of states include a reference to the individual right:

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
 
Kal'Stang said:
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28:



Talks about both militia AND citizens.

Another thing to consider is that the militia was considered to be everyone (as evidenced by George Mason's quote there). If everyone is considered as part oson that everyone would have a right to own a gun?f the militia then wouldn't it stand to rea That even if you were correct that the quotes always reference militias that since it was thought that everyone is a part of the militia then they were talking about both militia and individuals at the same time? In other words they were both one and the same.
Click to expand...

Not only the right, but the duty:

that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson.

One could easily make the argument that those who refuse to be armed and demand others be the same are violating the Constitutiion.
 
A moderate stance on my very rights? :roll:

In a compromise between a wise man and a fool, only the fool benefits.
 
Wayne Jr said:


I welcome your thoughts on this video. I find it to be well researched and accurate.
Click to expand...



He sounds like all the other the anti-2nd amendment trash out there. He used their common arguments for trying to **** on the 2nd amendment. Like his claim the 2nd amendment isn't a individual right and that's only for those serving in a militia or they they didn't have that back then when the bill of rights was written argument. He is no moderate.Also his claim that none of our founders talked about the individual right to own a gun is bull****.Most of the posts on the first page contain quotes by our founders that prove his claim the 2nd amendment does grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms. Also there is the fact the 2nd amendment says they people the right to keep and bear arms, not the militia the right to keep and bear arms.Meaning militia membership is not a requirement for gun ownership.Then there is the horse**** claim he made that the 2nd amendment doesn't exist to stop a tyrannical government and invasions while trying to claim it was for the state militia to do that. He is no moderate.HE is also wrong on the AR15 being assault rifle before 1986. Because the AR15 rifles that were assault rifles were made between 1959-1964. Once the military adopted them they became the M16 while the AR15 name was only used on semiautomatic rifles. Sure sounds slightly more intelligent than all the other anti-2nd amendment trash out there because he acknowledges there is a difference between an assault rifle and assault weapon and what a clip and magazine are. But that doesn't make him a moderate.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Problems with this "moderate argument" are:

1. Incorrect assumption that the Constitution, and thus government(s) "grant's rights." The Constitution was written to organize and grant power to the Federal government. The Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) was added to protect Individual Rights from violation by that new government.

2. Incorrect assumption that the Declaration of Independence does not inform us as to the purpose and limitations on ANY government, and what rights citizens always retain in relation to any government. He failed to recognize that individuals retain the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness AND the expressed right to rise up and rebel against tyranny. How does one go about enforcing one's right to life, liberty, happiness, and rebellion if not by a right to keep and bear arms?

3. Incorrect understanding of history. The very first rebellion after the new nation was formed was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791; a citizen's rebellion against what they considered an unfair tax. It was not a "State Militia" uprising, but simply that of common citizens who opposed this tax. It was opposed by State Militia's called up at the request of Washington, and led by him.

4. Failure to understand the attitudes of the period. I've argued about the paradigm of that time in a separate post, i.e. that the people of that era always believed that it was an individual right to self-preservation first, and a resource to raise forces to defend the State and the Nation second.
Click to expand...

1: Social contracts, through government representation decides what rights if any are to be a part of said society.

2: The Declaration of Independence is a statement of purpose and idealized society.

3: Shays' Rebellion came first in the US which was put down by militias: "Free State"; remember?

4: The people of that era were tired of suppressive government that enforced itself through an active standing army, which was really all about suppressing rebellions...
 
jet57 said:
1: Social contracts, through government representation decides what rights if any are to be a part of said society.
Click to expand...

Not quite. "Social contracts" determine what "civil rights" citizens have. That would be things like voting, tax relief, who is a citizen, etc. We are discussing inherent rights, i.e. individual rights which are NOT granted by any government like life, liberty, self defense, and the right to rebel against an oppressive government.

jet57 said:
2: The Declaration of Independence is a statement of purpose and idealized society.
Click to expand...

Again, it is the document which declared independence from the government of England. That was the government under which the colonies were established, ruled, and taxed. It was a declaration of the rights of citizens to revolt and a list of the valid reasons they could do so generally, and then in particular regarding that tyrannous government. Have to be armed in order to have any chance of a successful (or even an unsuccessful) revolt.

jet57 said:
3: Shays' Rebellion came first in the US which was put down by militias: "Free State"; remember?
Click to expand...

Correct. But that was a revolt against perceived unfair taxation by the State of Massachusetts. Even then, it was put down by the Massachusetts State militia.

However, I cited the Whiskey Rebellion because it was the first revolt against Federal action via the Whisky tax.

jet57 said:
4: The people of that era were tired of suppressive government that enforced itself through an active standing army, which was really all about suppressing rebellions...
Click to expand...

Ummm, has nothing to do with my response. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 28:

Talks about both militia AND citizens.

Another thing to consider is that the militia was considered to be everyone (as evidenced by George Mason's quote there). If everyone is considered as part of the militia then wouldn't it stand to reason that everyone would have a right to own a gun? That even if you were correct that the quotes always reference militias that since it was thought that everyone is a part of the militia then they were talking about both militia and individuals at the same time? In other words they were both one and the same.
Click to expand...
Thank you for taking the time to look up a relevant portion of a Federalist Paper.

In reading it, I can see both interpretations, but I disagree with the modern idea forwarded by Conservative gun right's groups that the RKBA is about vigilantism. These groups, such as USCCA and any civilian company with the word 'tactical' in its name, don't use the term "vigilanty" just like the Brady Campaign doesn't use the term "anti-gun", but when you look at what they want and compair it to the terms, it fits. What began as a right to defend the State from the Feds has turned into a radicalist notin of civilians performing revolt against the State.

The 2nd A was intended to protect individual's right to personally own firearms in case they need to join a militia. The right has since evolved into a more personal liberty, and I'm not saying we should go back, but we should have accurate historical context going forward.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
Thank you for taking the time to look up a relevant portion of a Federalist Paper.

In reading it, I can see both interpretations, but I disagree with the modern idea forwarded by Conservative gun right's groups that the RKBA is about vigilantism. These groups, such as USCCA and any civilian company with the word 'tactical' in its name, don't use the term "vigilanty" just like the Brady Campaign doesn't use the term "anti-gun", but when you look at what they want and compair it to the terms, it fits.

The 2nd A was intended to protect individual's right to personally own firearms in case they need to join a militia. The right has since evolved into a more personal liberty, and I'm not saying we should go back, but we should have accurate historical context going forward.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you're getting the word "vigilante" from, even from implication. Unless you think that self defense is a form of vigilantism? Could you please explain that part? Vigilantism to me is going out and seeking to stop crime. Versus reacting to an immediate crime which would be self defense.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The basic premise seems to be that technology and the lack of formal militia use/service render the 2A moot (able to be ignored in the name of public safety?). The idea that the 2A means whatever bans, restrictions or government sanctioned reasons may be added by the (Australian style?) government are OK defeats the very purpose of the 2A's express limitation on government power.

Comparing a right to a state-issued privilege shows how wrong the 'moderate' OP link idea is. The BoR was included only to assure the people that government power had clear limits yet the 'moderate' OP link purports that these limits may be changed by the (Australian style?) government with no need to amend the constitution. This is the main reason that we have only the SCOTUS to stop the federal government from institutiung a national gun permitted feature list, national gun registry and national gun licenesing system.

No mention was ever made as to why 10 (not 12, 15 or 17) rounds is considered, by the 'moderate' OP speaker, to be the (constitutional?) divide between a 'high capacity' magazine and a 'protected capacity' magazine. Basically, since the 1994 AWB was never found to be unconstitutional it is now a seen as the 'logical starting point' for national gun laws that are to be much more restrictive (Austarlian style?) - giving much credence to the 'slippery slope' predictions often cited with any such 'resaonabe restriction' laws.
Click to expand...
I have to agree that 'assault weapon' bans undermine the right of the people to personally own firearms in case they need to join a militia, but I also have to disagree with your slippery-slope fallacy that one given limitation has to lead to a total ban. There can be a balance. For example: assault rifles should be available to civilians, but the state has every right to require you to register it, store it in a rated safe, and undergo training. The Left is wrong for thinking access to assualt rifles will lead to more mass shootings, and the Right is wrong for thinking a few requierments will lead to confiscation.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not sure where you're getting the word "vigilante" from, even from implication. Unless you think that self-defense is a form of vigilantism? Could you please explain that part? Vigilantism to me is going out and seeking to stop crime. Versus reacting to an immediate crime which would be self defense.
Click to expand...

Consider the Bundy Standoff. On one hand we have a group who formed a militia to deter Federal agents from wrongfully confiscating property, while on the other hand there was this guy:


Daily-Stormer-Muffugguh-934.jpg


He wasn't part of the Bundy militia. He acted alone, was never in danger by any party to then claim self-defense, obviously ready to take the law into his own hands. If that's not vigilantism then I don't know what is.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Consider the Bundy Standoff. On one hand we have a group who formed a militia to deter Federal agents from wrongfully confiscating property, while on the other hand there was this guy:

View attachment 67241753

He wasn't part of the Bundy militia. He acted alone, was never in danger by any party to then claim self-defense, obviously ready to take the law into his own hands. If that's not vigilantism then I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

Now THAT was wrong and yes, vigilantism imo. Quite possibly seditious ta boot and he should have been prosecuted for it.

It should be noted that there is a VERY fine line between vigilantism/sedition vs self defense/patriotic duty. So fine a line that sometimes its almost impossible to tell the difference until its history and the victors get to write the history books.
 
Rucker61 said:
This line from the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 is a good example. It's also part of the proposed BOR that the Pennsvlvania delegation brought to the Constitutional Convention:

"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

If the right to bear arms was understood to be limited to militia, why did the majority of states include a reference to the individual right:

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
Click to expand...
That mischaracterizes the conversation. When speaking of the individual's right to own arms, it was always in the context of militia action. <-- That statement does not mean "the right is limited to the militia". You got to own whatever firearm you wanted but you didn't get to go around doing whatever you wanted with it.

I carry this notion forward into the national discussion of gun rights, that you should be able to buy a modern M4/M16, but that doesn't mean you get to carry it into Wallmart. You get to have it and own it and train with it and the next time the Beuro of Land Managment sends a SWAT team to illegaly confiscate thousands of dollars worth of cattle, you get to bring your modern M4/M16 to help turn them away. But you don't get to sling it over your shoulder while picking little Timmy up from school.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
I have to agree that 'assault weapon' bans undermine the right of the people to personally own firearms in case they need to join a militia, but I also have to disagree with your slippery-slope fallacy that one given limitation has to lead to a total ban. There can be a balance. For example: assault rifles should be available to civilians, but the state has every right to require you to register it, store it in a rated safe, and undergo training. The Left is wrong for thinking access to assualt rifles will lead to more mass shootings, and the Right is wrong for thinking a few requierments will lead to confiscation.
Click to expand...

Once it is accepted that gun feature bans (magazine capacity and semi-auto rifle/pistol) are OK then it is only a matter of time until a legal gun is defined as a seven foot long, blaze orange, single shot rifle or shotgun which is registered/inspected annaully for a $1K "user fee" (naturally, government employees will be exempted).
 
Wayne Jr said:
That mischaracterizes the conversation. When speaking of the individual's right to own arms, it was always in the context of militia action. <-- That statement does not mean "the right is limited to the militia". You got to own whatever firearm you wanted but you didn't get to go around doing whatever you wanted with it.

I carry this notion forward into the national discussion of gun rights, that you should be able to buy a modern M4/M16, but that doesn't mean you get to carry it into Wallmart. You get to have it and own it and train with it and the next time the Beuro of Land Managment sends a SWAT team to illegaly confiscate thousands of dollars worth of cattle, you get to bring your modern M4/M16 to help turn them away. But you don't get to sling it over your shoulder while picking little Timmy up from school.
Click to expand...

NO. :no:

The right to keep and bear arms was not spoken of "always in the context of militia action." :doh

Is it "militia action" to defend your home against raiders and robbers?

Is it "militia action" to defend your own life from a terrorist, murderer, or other assailant?

Is it "militia action" to use your weapon in the defense of someone else facing raiders, robbers, terrorists, and murderers?

Back in those days, as is still the case today, there are going to be people who seek to gain for themselves by harming YOU.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The right to keep and bear arms was not spoken of "always in the context of militia action."
Click to expand...
Can you provide an example from a Federalist paper or similar, a sample of a few paragraphs so we can see the statement in its proper context?

You are not going to ever use your gun to fight terrorism. That's exactly the vigilantism mindset I referred to earlier. Also, self-defense is a nice side effect of owning a firearm, but the 2nd Amendment is not about self-defense.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
Can you provide an example from a Federalist paper or similar, a sample of a few paragraphs so we can see the statement in its proper context?

You are not going to ever use your gun to fight terrorism. That's exactly the vigilantism mindset I referred to earlier. Also, self-defense is a nice side effect of owning a firearm, but the 2nd Amendment is not about self-defense.
Click to expand...

My reply to this oft-repeated question has been given in other threads.

Here is a link to the last post in a rather lengthy argument on the topic... feel free to work your way back...or not. :shrug:

Captain Adverse said:
Well, your disagreement notwithstanding....
Click to expand...
 
Wayne Jr said:
Thank you for taking the time to look up a relevant portion of a Federalist Paper.

In reading it, I can see both interpretations, but I disagree with the modern idea forwarded by Conservative gun right's groups that the RKBA is about vigilantism. These groups, such as USCCA and any civilian company with the word 'tactical' in its name, don't use the term "vigilanty" just like the Brady Campaign doesn't use the term "anti-gun", but when you look at what they want and compair it to the terms, it fits. What began as a right to defend the State from the Feds has turned into a radicalist notin of civilians performing revolt against the State.

The 2nd A was intended to protect individual's right to personally own firearms in case they need to join a militia. The right has since evolved into a more personal liberty, and I'm not saying we should go back, but we should have accurate historical context going forward.
Click to expand...

the founders believed that the rights they recognized existed since the dawn of man. Ie Before government existed. How does a right that pre-exists the (then) new government depend on joining a government controlled body (the militia) to vest?

secondly, before we talk about how much the second amendment limits the federal government, we must discuss how much power was PROPERLY delegated to the federal government in the first place and I don't see any such delegation when it comes to what type of arms private citizens can own
 
Wayne Jr said:
Can you provide an example from a Federalist paper or similar, a sample of a few paragraphs so we can see the statement in its proper context?

You are not going to ever use your gun to fight terrorism. That's exactly the vigilantism mindset I referred to earlier. Also, self-defense is a nice side effect of owning a firearm, but the 2nd Amendment is not about self-defense.
Click to expand...

so what was the natural right-the one that the Cruikshank court noted was not CREATED by the constitution-that the founders intended to recognize with the second amendment? SELF DEFENSE WAS THAT NATURAL RIGHT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom