• 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!

'Shall Not Be Infringed' - What Do These Words Really Mean?

What do the words Shall Not Be Infringed mean?

  • Shall not be infringed (ever).

    Votes: 19 95.0%

  • Shall be infringed on if absolutely necessary for safety

    Votes: 1 5.0%

  • Shall be infringed if more than 51% of Americans agree.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Shall be infringed if by Executive Order.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
The Militia Clauses
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. 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.




So the citizen doesn't need to right or ability to buy his own gun.
 
Rich2018 said:
You deliberately missed out the bit about in order the preserve a "well regulated militia".


Would a "well regulated militia" arm its members with a zillion kinds of gun with a hundred different calibers ?

The 2nd amendment was written when men were armed with rifled muskets and is a relic of the 18th century....just like the concept of a militia.
Click to expand...

Feel free to start your own poll.
 
Rich2018 said:
The Militia Clauses
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. 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.



So the citizen doesn't need to right or ability to buy his own gun.
Click to expand...

Your OPINION is noted.
 
SkyChief said:
The last four words in the 2nd Amendment are pretty clear (to me).

However, it seems there are other possible interpretations depending on one's political views.

What do the words 'Shall not be infringed' mean?

1) Shall not be infringed (ever).

2) Shall be infringed only when absolutely necessary for safety.

3) Shall be infringed if more than 51% of Americans agree to infringement(s).

4) Shall be infringed if ordered by the President (Executive Order).
Click to expand...


To bear arms but the Constitution doesn't say they have a right to buy arms, only bear the arms that Congress provides.
 
AProudLefty said:
It means anyone can own guns and that should not be denied.
Click to expand...

The bit about Congress providing the guns means only certain standardized firearms should be allowed - and only to members of the militia.

The idea that the militia includes everyone in the USA who's not banned from owning guns is patently ridiculous to the idea of a "well regulated" militia.
 
Rich2018 said:
The bit about Congress providing the guns means only certain standardized firearms should be allowed - and only to members of the militia.

The idea that the militia includes everyone in the USA who's not banned from owning guns is patently ridiculous to the idea of a "well regulated" militia.
Click to expand...

The purpose of the militia is to defend against tyrannical government.
 
SkyChief said:
The last four words in the 2nd Amendment are pretty clear (to me).

However, it seems there are other possible interpretations depending on one's political views.

What do the words 'Shall not be infringed' mean?

1) Shall not be infringed (ever).

2) Shall be infringed only when absolutely necessary for safety.

3) Shall be infringed if more than 51% of Americans agree to infringement(s).

4) Shall be infringed if ordered by the President (Executive Order).
Click to expand...

Depends on context.

If I were to a historical view of this, it would mean that I am allowed to own and bear firearms so that I can help defend the state that I live in by serving in the state militia and providing said militia with myself and my firearm(s). Any infringement would mean any obstacle that would prevent my owning a firearm that is necessary for me to fulfill my duties to the militia.

I know, I know. You are now frothing at the bit and are ready to activate your inner keyboard cowboy. I am NOT saying we should bad firearms because the 2nd Amendment is referring to a situation that no longer exists...rather, I am saying that the text of the amendment needs revision to reflect today's situation. I do believe that Americans have the right to privately owning firearms...just for different reasons as opposed to being part of a militia. And that's where the problem is: the 2nd Amendment is about militias that we no longer use today based on our volunteer military.

After the Revolutionary War, Washington proposed to Congress and Congress agreed to disbanding the US army to 500 infantry and 100 artillery personnel. This is going in lockstep with the idea that the Founders distrusted a standing army under the direction of the government. They had, by using the Articles of Confederation, drastically limited the federal government and further decreased its power by disbanding the army that answered to it. What they were counting on was that the now RIF'D soldiers would return home, and asnwer the call to duty to protect their home state by being called to the state forces. or militias. It was also desired that each state would figure out how to arm those militiamen.

Washington, in his first State of the Union (which is often misquoted by pro-gun advocates), expressed his desire that some manufacturers would turn to making affordable firearms to sell to the people as at that time two conditions existed when it came to national security. We had to rely on militias as opposed to the tiny standing army we had...and that the fledgling US federal government was too cash-strapped to afford arming the militias.

So, then shortly after the Articles of Confederation failed pretty badly, the Founders and Framers came up with Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment echoed Washington's sentiment. Allow the private citizen to own firearms so that they could serve in the militia. Now, what is unsaid, and what would seem obvious to me, is that the owning of a firearm would also entail the owner to be able to do other things; hunting to provide or for profit, personal and/or property protection if it is not being used for national/state security. But the Amendment does NOT say this...and that is the problem. As stated, and as regarded in the words, letters, journals and records of Congress...the concern was of national/state security...the made the Amendment not to protect your right to own a firearm as personal protection of yourself and property or to use for providing or profit...but so that you had weapon when you were called up for militia duty.

They didn't care about personal use. And that is reflected in how the 2nd Amendment is written. And, it needs to be changed to reflect the needs of today, not kept in the now unused concept of militias.
 
One big problem with your picture....they still never envisioned the use of "machine guns: even with the existence of the Puckle gun, because no one wanted to own one.

It was invented around 1717 by James Puckle. It was never massed produced. It will ill-received. It exploded in test trials, injuring the operators. Only two were made to serve the British as naval variants in 1722 and failed when they were attempted to be used in the Caribbean.

Congress never saw this weapon; few knew it even existed as it wasn't even being made 54 years later when the Revolution started. It was never displayed for consideration of purchase by Congress.

So to say that the Founders and Framers had machine guns in mind when creating the 2nd Amendment in 1788/89 is absurd as most weren't aware of this particular firearm, and what "machine guns" did exist were manufactured at most, 2-4 weapons and considered failures that no one would purchase or that any military would use.
 
Rich2018 said:
To bear arms but the Constitution doesn't say they have a right to buy arms, only bear the arms that Congress provides.
Click to expand...

That rumbling beneath your feet is the founding fathers spinning in their graves over what you just said.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms!" - Thomas Jefferson
 
AProudLefty said:
The purpose of the militia is to defend against tyrannical government.
Click to expand...


History would disagree with you.

Washington proposed a plan to RIF the army and Congress approved it; dropping the US army to 500 infantry and 100 artillery personnel total. They did this to eliminate the power of a central, federal government from being able to impose its will on the people. Instead, and what the Founders envisioned, was that each state would protect itself with militia and if there was a threat to the nation at large, Congress could...ask...for militia to travel outside of their respected states to aid in the defense of the nation.

So, the Founders already had what they thought to be a solution to limit the might of the central government. When it became time to do away with the Articles of Confederation and the to create the Constitution (and then the Bill of Rights), they still relied on militias to provide overall defense for each individual state and for the nation at large. The US professional army had, by this point, become the Legion of the United States and had grown, but only to 5,120 personnel. Still not enough to provide a defense of the nation, or a state, on its own.

When the Bill of Rights were written, they kept in mind of a speech that Washington wrote (and is often misquoted by the right) that detailed his wish for American manufacturers to create affordable firearms for the populace since the new nation's government was so cash strapped they would not have been able to fund the armaments and ammunition for each state's militia. So, when the 2nd Amendment was written, it was made so that there could be no obstacle to private ownership of firearms so that the average male citizen could fufill their duties to serve in a militia. This was, in that moment of time, the most economical way to arm a militia.

The Founders didn't really concentrate that much on the private use of the firearm by its owner. Rather, they wanted to make sure that a militia would be well regulated and armed by allowing the individual to privately own the firearm they would use to defend the nation with as opposed to the government purchasing the firearms it couldn't afford. The 2nd Amendment is really about the defense of state and country. It was basically taken for granted that citizens were responsible owners of firearms and would only use them for self-protection (Indians and animals) or to provide meals for families or meat or furs for profit. But the 2nd does NOT address that aspect...just the part of using a privately owned firearm and not to be infringed upon in matters of protection of state and nation.

And that's the problem with the 2nd. I think, honestly, that a re-wording to reflect the current times so that American citizens can have firearms as the need for militias no longer exist, it was never meant to keep the US government in check to begin with, and to expand the private ownership and define what that means.
 
Jason Warfield said:
History would disagree with you.

Washington proposed a plan to RIF the army and Congress approved it; dropping the US army to 500 infantry and 100 artillery personnel total. They did this to eliminate the power of a central, federal government from being able to impose its will on the people. Instead, and what the Founders envisioned, was that each state would protect itself with militia and if there was a threat to the nation at large, Congress could...ask...for militia to travel outside of their respected states to aid in the defense of the nation.

So, the Founders already had what they thought to be a solution to limit the might of the central government. When it became time to do away with the Articles of Confederation and the to create the Constitution (and then the Bill of Rights), they still relied on militias to provide overall defense for each individual state and for the nation at large. The US professional army had, by this point, become the Legion of the United States and had grown, but only to 5,120 personnel. Still not enough to provide a defense of the nation, or a state, on its own.

When the Bill of Rights were written, they kept in mind of a speech that Washington wrote (and is often misquoted by the right) that detailed his wish for American manufacturers to create affordable firearms for the populace since the new nation's government was so cash strapped they would not have been able to fund the armaments and ammunition for each state's militia. So, when the 2nd Amendment was written, it was made so that there could be no obstacle to private ownership of firearms so that the average male citizen could fufill their duties to serve in a militia. This was, in that moment of time, the most economical way to arm a militia.

The Founders didn't really concentrate that much on the private use of the firearm by its owner. Rather, they wanted to make sure that a militia would be well regulated and armed by allowing the individual to privately own the firearm they would use to defend the nation with as opposed to the government purchasing the firearms it couldn't afford. The 2nd Amendment is really about the defense of state and country. It was basically taken for granted that citizens were responsible owners of firearms and would only use them for self-protection (Indians and animals) or to provide meals for families or meat or furs for profit. But the 2nd does NOT address that aspect...just the part of using a privately owned firearm and not to be infringed upon in matters of protection of state and nation.

And that's the problem with the 2nd. I think, honestly, that a re-wording to reflect the current times so that American citizens can have firearms as the need for militias no longer exist, it was never meant to keep the US government in check to begin with, and to expand the private ownership and define what that means.
Click to expand...

You are seriously misinformed. Not just about the creation of the US military, but particularly about the Second Amendment. George Washington had absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

The anti-Federalists were afraid the Federalists would disarm the people in order to prevent the States from forming their own citizen militias, which would enable a politicized federal standing army or a select federal militia to rule. The response of the anti-Federalists 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. So they creating the Second Amendment. As the Supreme Court has already held, one does not need to be a member of a militia to own a firearm. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

It had absolutely nothing to do with "the average male citizen could fufill their duties to serve in a militia."

With regard to the reinstatement of the military, that occurred September 29, 1789, after President Washington reminded Congress, twice. A standing military at that time consisted in large part of foreign mercenaries (the English were fond of using German Hessian mercenaries, for example), which was what Congress wanted to avoid. Congress had no problem with an entirely American military, they just wanted to avoid hiring foreign mercenaries. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps had already existed since 1775, but Congress dissolved the Continental Army after England surrendered in 1783. They reinstated the United States Army 6 years later.
 
Last edited:
Jason Warfield said:
One big problem with your picture....they still never envisioned the use of "machine guns: even with the existence of the Puckle gun, because no one wanted to own one.

It was invented around 1717 by James Puckle. It was never massed produced. It will ill-received. It exploded in test trials, injuring the operators. Only two were made to serve the British as naval variants in 1722 and failed when they were attempted to be used in the Caribbean.

Congress never saw this weapon; few knew it even existed as it wasn't even being made 54 years later when the Revolution started. It was never displayed for consideration of purchase by Congress.

So to say that the Founders and Framers had machine guns in mind when creating the 2nd Amendment in 1788/89 is absurd as most weren't aware of this particular firearm, and what "machine guns" did exist were manufactured at most, 2-4 weapons and considered failures that no one would purchase or that any military would use.
Click to expand...

anyone who used a gun can always envision one that shoots more rapidly-just as race car drivers in the 1910 Indy 500 certainly envisioned 225 MPH McClarens.
 
danielpalos said:
Even our Civil War proved beyond any shadow of any doubt; Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.
Click to expand...

more silly bot speak that has no relevance nor value in this discussion. The right of the people may not be infringed, there is nothing about infringing on militia-which does not have a "right"
 
Rich2018 said:
You deliberately missed out the bit about in order the preserve a "well regulated militia".


Would a "well regulated militia" arm its members with a zillion kinds of gun with a hundred different calibers ?

The 2nd amendment was written when men were armed with rifled muskets and is a relic of the 18th century....just like the concept of a militia.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say anything about preserving a well-regulated militia.

It says, in a nutshell, that a well-regulated (i.e. well-prepared) militia is necessary to secure the freedom of our country, and therefore the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Most importantly, there's nothing in either of these statements that conditions the right to bear arms on the existence of the militia.
 
Rogue Valley said:
The authors of the 2nd Amendment never envisioned the automatic weapons available today, mass shootings, armed teachers, and a shameful murder rate.
Click to expand...
OK I'm going to trot this out. The authors of the 2nd Amendment never envisioned envisioned cellphones and computers let alone the internet and how about those automated printing presses. All available today.
 
danielpalos said:
Even our Civil War proved beyond any shadow of any doubt; Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed, regardless of all of the other ones.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with whether or not you plan on voting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom