• 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!

Define assault weapon

So that would be who, exactly?

Like today, for instance. Are you and I members of the militia?

No. The founding fathers of this country would have LOL'd at the notion. They knew the importance of well regulated militias, not a bunch of vigilantes running around.
 
If you want to think you are free to bring your freedom-to-carry gun crap near my kid's school, I can still show you a thing or two about being conquered.

Are militia members (i.e. the whole of the people) not allowed near schools now? When did that happen?
 
That's not how the founding fathers did it. The Militia Act of 1792, passed the year after the ratification of the 2A, required mandatory training every 6 months. The requirements for what kinds of weapons the militia members were required to purchase, down to how many bullets, was specified very exactly. The responsibility for their regulation and training fell on the state legislatures. These militias were put under the ultimate command of the president of the United States. And George Washington himself used that power to call them up to put down a tax rebellion in PA.

Those militia members who disobeyed orders faced court martial. Because that's what it means to be well regulated.

You are able to grab your own gun and join a militia force and that militia force is to be commanded by the states Governor and or called upon by the Federal Government and then be under the command of the President. If you join a militia force and sign up and that militia is placed under a commanding officer that commanding office has the authority to divey out court martials. So don't sign up for a militia unless you know what your getting yourself into.
All that doesn't negate the fact that you as a resident citizen of the US have the right to grab your gun and join a militia force.
 
No. The founding fathers of this country would have LOL'd at the notion. They knew the importance of well regulated militias, not a bunch of vigilantes running around.

But as Haymarket pointed out, the militia was considered to be the whole of the people. You, and me, and every other American citizen. We are the militia, if I understand Haymarket correctly.
 
Are militia members (i.e. the whole of the people) not allowed near schools now? When did that happen?

Not when armed. Their right to arms is infringed.

Why don't you bring your local militia over and find out what happens?
 
But as Haymarket pointed out, the militia was considered to be the whole of the people. You, and me, and every other American citizen. We are the militia, if I understand Haymarket correctly.

Not as private citizens, but accountable to and under the command of the state legislatures and ultimately the federal executive branch.
 
You are able to grab your own gun and join a militia force and that militia force is to be commanded by the states Governor and or called upon by the Federal Government and then be under the command of the President. If you join a militia force and sign up and that militia is placed under a commanding officer that commanding office has the authority to divey out court martials. So don't sign up for a militia unless you know what your getting yourself into.
All that doesn't negate the fact that you as a resident citizen of the US have the right to grab your gun and join a militia force.

So those funny voices in my head are telling me to take my fully armed attack helicopter for a little joyride over the Pentagon and white house. Is that my right?
 
It says that Founding Father George Mason considered THE WHOLE PEOPLE as the militia and thus the ability to regulate arms is given to the Congress.
Militia regulations only cover militia-related arms.

The Second Amendment forbids militia regulations from being abused to prevent militiamen from having effective combat weapons.


The figments of your own imagination do not count in the real world. The militia is long ago gone with the wind and has been replaced by the military and police.
You're the one who keeps talking about militia regulations.
 
Militia regulations only cover militia-related arms.

The Second Amendment forbids militia regulations from being abused to prevent militiamen from having effective combat weapons.



You're the one who keeps talking about militia regulations.

But didn't he just say that there is no militia? So then what is there to regulate?
 
The ones that were being used in the Vegas massacre.
That guy used bump stocks. Those have already been outlawed.


Those militia members who disobeyed orders faced court martial. Because that's what it means to be well regulated.
The term "well regulated militia" meant a militia that was capable of fighting as a single coordinated unit as opposed to fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
 
That guy used bump stocks. Those have already been outlawed.



The term "well regulated militia" meant a militia that was capable of fighting as a single coordinated unit as opposed to fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

The term "well regulated" has changed over time. At the time of the drafting "well regulated" meant "properly functioning", as in "a well regulated clock".
 
I'm not talking about the 2nd amendment. I'm refuting someone's argument that article I, section 8 gives congress the legislative authority to "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia" and therefore allows gun control legislation.

He's used this gambit before and he either has to say that we are all the militia or that there is no militia. There is no middle ground.

The US Constitution does give Congress the authority to call forth the national militia, but that does not give them the authority to regulate firearms. In fact, the anti-Federalists wanted to ensure that the Federalists could never use Congress to regulate firearms and prevent State militias, which is why they ratified the Second Amendment.

The national militia is defined above. It has never included everyone. Nor does membership in a militia, or the lack thereof, confer any additional rights. Everyone is entitled to the individual right to keep and bear arms, regardless of their status in a militia.
 
Last edited:
So those funny voices in my head are telling me to take my fully armed attack helicopter for a little joyride over the Pentagon and white house. Is that my right?
Im sure there is other laws regarding that.
Look at the militia act of 1903 and the section regarding the unorganized militia which is the reserve militia which is every able bodied man from 17 to 45 years old.

Or read the supreme court majority decision in Heller vs DC
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
It goes into length about what the militia is who they are and where you can find them.
 
The US Constitution does give Congress the authority to call forth the national militia, but that does not give them they authority to regulate firearms.
I agree 100%. But that is what Haymarket says justifies restrictions enacted by the general government.
In fact, the anti-Federalists wanted to ensure that the Federalists could never use Congress to regulate firearms, which is why they ratified the Second Amendment.

The national militia is defined above. It has never included everyone. Nor does membership in a militia, or the lack thereof, confer any additional rights. Everyone is entitled to the individual right to keep and bear arms, regardless of their status in a militia.
Again, I agree. Reading the treaty, I don't see any legislative power that would allow the general government to restrict the ability of the people of the several sovereign states from acquiring or possessing firearms. I think that militia thing is a desperate grasp.
 
You have the freedom to start your own meeting if you want to.

As do all Americans however that is NOT the militia that was referred to in the Second Amendment.
 
In Heller Justice Antonin Scalia said:



Do you disagree with Heller?

There are parts of Heller that are wrong, but overall they got it mostly right. They at least got the history correct, which was the most important part. Without acknowledging the Second Amendment's history and reason for being they would never have concluded that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

With regard to limits on individual rights, those limits are generally set at when those rights are used to harm another. We have tort laws for those harmed by those who abuse the First Amendment Free Speech Clause, just like we have laws that punish those who abuse their individual right to keep and bear arms when they harm another. As the adage goes, "your rights end at my nose."
 
As do all Americans however that is NOT the militia that was referred to in the Second Amendment.

What was the militia that was referred to in the Second Amendment?
 
As do all Americans however that is NOT the militia that was referred to in the Second Amendment.

It states you have the rights to carry a gun and own guns in your home so that you can protect yourself and join a militia force if so desired and or called upon to do so.
 
That does not change the reality that our courts allow the government to have a law that impacts a fundamental right if the government can demonstrate a compelling government interest.



That is incorrect. The government is generally forbidden from passing laws that have any impact at all on the exercise of a fundamental right.

The government is only allowed a few isolated exceptions to this (i.e. when it can demonstrate a compelling government interest).



That is incorrect. The Second Amendment prevents militia regulations from being abused to prevent militiamen from having effective combat weapons.



You're the one who keeps talking about militia regulations.

So you made it up about COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST part of the Constitution. Got it.
 
Militia regulations only cover militia-related arms.

The Second Amendment forbids militia regulations from being abused to prevent militiamen from having effective combat weapons.



You're the one who keeps talking about militia regulations.

The intent as previously cited and explained was since the militia was the WHOLE PEOPLE, Congress could regulate arms.

But tell me, which firearms would you claim could not be covered by the language in the Constitution?
 
The intent as previously cited and explained was since the militia was the WHOLE PEOPLE, Congress could regulate arms.

But tell me, which firearms would you claim could not be covered by the language in the Constitution?

You have already told us that there is no militia. So, um, wtf?
 
But as Haymarket pointed out, the militia was considered to be the whole of the people. You, and me, and every other American citizen. We are the militia, if I understand Haymarket correctly.

The national militia (both organized and unorganized) is more selective than "every other American citizen" as I pointed out. I, for example, am no longer part of the national militia and haven't been for 20 years. Only woman who are already members of the National Guard are considered members of the organized national militia, for example.
 
Back
Top Bottom