• 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:435]Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Media_Truth said:
It wasn't directed to you, was it? Maybe you should read the previous posts, and try to keep up.
Click to expand...

I did, your post was still deficient in addressing his question. And speaking of keeping up-you constantly demonstrate what we see in most of the Anti gun posters-a paucity of understanding gun laws and gun use because the motivations of anti gunners is generally based on the politics of gun control, not on expertise in the subjects
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Media_Truth said:
Fine, so write about in those forum sections. This thread is about the militia's Right to Bear Arms.
Click to expand...

wrong-yet again-it is about the fact that the second amendment is an individual right and that is beyond any rational dispute.
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

TurtleDude said:
wrong-yet again-it is about the fact that the second amendment is an individual right and that is beyond any rational dispute.
Click to expand...

Not according to the topic of this thread. And none of you has made a good case against it.

You are misreading Amendment 2. "Is necessary for a free state" is the clause applied to the militia. Then it discusses "people" in the second part of the same sentence, which makes it part of the same discussion - the militia. The "people of the militia" have the Right to Bear Arms. "Bear Arms" was a military term used over and over during the time.

It is an individual right, in that these people were spread across 13 states, in homes throughout the United States. If needed, they would be armed and ready. They were "well regulated". Others also had the Right to Bear Arms, but it wasn't protected by the Constitution. It was important that Militiamen were set apart from other citizens so that their "Rights could not be Infringed". This was understood throughout the Colonies.
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Media_Truth said:
Not according to the topic of this thread. And none of you has made a good case against it.

You are misreading Amendment 2. "Is necessary for a free state" is the clause applied to the militia. Then it discusses "people" in the second part of the same sentence, which makes it part of the same discussion - the militia. The "people of the militia" have the Right to Bear Arms. "Bear Arms" was a military term used over and over during the time.

It is an individual right, in that these people were spread across 13 states, in homes throughout the United States. If needed, they would be armed and ready. They were "well regulated". Others also had the Right to Bear Arms, but it wasn't protected by the Constitution. It was important that Militiamen were set apart from other citizens so that their "Rights could not be Infringed". This was understood throughout the Colonies.
Click to expand...

you're so wrong it is hilarious

The Cruikshank case, along with the early legal scholars (St George Tucker, Rawls and others) all noted that the second amendment did not CREATE a right but MERELY recognized a right the founders all held existed from the dawn of man. That is why the Cruikshank decision noted that the RKBA was not dependent on the constitution. So the founders all believed and held that free men have always had the right to keep and bear arms--a right that existed prior to the creation of the new government via the constitution.

Now if the founders believed and intended that this right pre-existed government, your argument that it only VESTED after someone was in a government regulated or directed entity is just plain silly.

Your second major fail is that even if the second amendment was never penned, the founders never delegated any gun control power to the federal government in Article One, Section 8.
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Media_Truth said:
Not according to the topic of this thread. And none of you has made a good case against it.
Click to expand...

I can quote SCOTUS in multiple cases. That makes it the law of the land.

You are misreading Amendment 2. "Is necessary for a free state" is the clause applied to the militia. Then it discusses "people" in the second part of the same sentence, which makes it part of the same discussion - the militia. The "people of the militia" have the Right to Bear Arms. "Bear Arms" was a military term used over and over during the time.
Click to expand...

"Keep and bear arms". The Congress has the power to determine what arms the militia can and cannot bear. The Second Amendment cannot protect the arms of the militia. The term "bear arms" was not exclusively used in a collective sense, either.

It is an individual right, in that these people were spread across 13 states, in homes throughout the United States. If needed, they would be armed and ready. They were "well regulated". Others also had the Right to Bear Arms, but it wasn't protected by the Constitution. It was important that Militiamen were set apart from other citizens so that their "Rights could not be Infringed". This was understood throughout the Colonies.
Click to expand...

We know what the colonies and states understood, because they put it in their constitutions:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" - Pennsylvania, 1776
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State", 1777
"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." - Connecticut, 1818
"That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." - Alabama, 1819
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." - Texas, 1845
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied" - South Dakota, 1889
"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men." Arizona, 1912
" 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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State." - Alaska, 1959

From 1776 to modern times, the states themselves certainly recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.


State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Yes, in the history of the United States, even from the earliest days, people, for the most part, had the right to bear arms. However, the US constitution reserves this right only for militiamen. This is evident very early in US history. Alabama passed gun control laws. Kentucky eliminated the Right to Bear Arms from it's state constitution. Other states and municipalities passed gun control laws. These were not judged to be in violation of the US constitution. It's only recently (2008) where the new Libertarian SCOTUS has started interfering with local gun laws.
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Media_Truth said:
Yes, in the history of the United States, even from the earliest days, people, for the most part, had the right to bear arms. However, the US constitution reserves this right only for militiamen. This is evident very early in US history.
Click to expand...
If it was evident, we would have seen actual federal gun control laws. All we saw were laws telling the militia what they had to own. The federal government never passed a single gun law until 1934 under FDR.

Alabama passed gun control laws. Kentucky eliminated the Right to Bear Arms from it's state constitution. Other states and municipalities passed gun control laws. These were not judged to be in violation of the US constitution.
Click to expand...
You do realize, of course, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were only intended to define and restrict the powers of the federal government, right? Until the 14th Amendment, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states.


It's only recently (2008) where the new Libertarian SCOTUS has started interfering with local gun laws.
Click to expand...

Under the 14th Amendment, the states were held to the same restrictions as the federal governments with regards to the individual right to keep and bear arms. US v Cruikshank was 1876; US v Miller, where the defendant was granted standing based solely on his defense of a Constitututional right to keep and bear arms, was 1939. The Senate issued a report in 1982 that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right https://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf.

If the states have the power to restrict part of the Bill of Rights, they have the power to restrict any of it.

Edit: in 2016 SCOTUS, in a 9-0 decision, said "The Court has held that “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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)".

9-0.
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

TurtleDude said:
Why is it that when a collectivist or an authoritarian gets schooled on a gun issue, they start screaming racist or similar terms?
Click to expand...

Why is it that you are defending the Confederacy "poor whites" who fought for slavery and other white supremacists?
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Tigerace117 said:
Why is it that you are defending the Confederacy "poor whites" who fought for slavery and other white supremacists?
Click to expand...

you need to learn what the term defending means
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Moderator's Warning:
Let's keep the discussion strictly on the issues, and not each other. Moderator action will be taken if this is not followed.
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Rucker61 said:
If it was evident, we would have seen actual federal gun control laws. All we saw were laws telling the militia what they had to own. The federal government never passed a single gun law until 1934 under FDR.
Click to expand...

This is not a logical conclusion to what I said at all.

Rucker61 said:
You do realize, of course, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were only intended to define and restrict the powers of the federal government, right? Until the 14th Amendment, none of the Bill of Rights applied to the states.
Click to expand...

Yes, and with gun control laws, the SCOTUS never interfered with State decisions, until 2008. The Libertarian lawyers have taken over the SCOTUS. But what goes around, comes around. Big brother has started flexing his muscles...
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Media_Truth said:
This is not a logical conclusion to what I said at all.



Yes, and with gun control laws, the SCOTUS never interfered with State decisions, until 2008. The Libertarian lawyers have taken over the SCOTUS. But what goes around, comes around. Big brother has started flexing his muscles...
Click to expand...

Is that the same Big Brother that interfered with local laws on gay marriage and abortion?
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Rucker61 said:
Is that the same Big Brother that interfered with local laws on gay marriage and abortion?
Click to expand...

You're off-topic, and in the wrong sub-forum.
 
Re: Gun Rights Are Only For Militias?

Media_Truth said:
You're off-topic, and in the wrong sub-forum.
Click to expand...

I'm noting that gun control isn't the only field in which the federal government is interfering with state authority. It's a valid comparison. If it's an infringement of state authority to overrule them on restricting the rights of the People with regards to rights protected by the Second Amendment, then it's hypocrisy to support federal overrule on other state infringement of individual rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom