• 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!

What "well regulated" means in the 2nd Amendment

Rich2018 said:
Not even the most hardline advocate of gun control wishes to make illegal gun ownership a capital crime.


Would you really not fear spending you remaining days in an orange jump suit ?


Losing you house, income, access to your family...
Click to expand...

In your dystopian world, my last moments would be in a pile of spent brass.
 
Kusa said:
In your dystopian world, my last moments would be in a pile of spent brass.
Click to expand...

:lamo


You mean in your fantasy world.


I note your choice of avatar.


You clearly have a self image problem as proven by your posts...But you're just talking big to make yourself seem stronger than you really are.
You're the kind of gun owner who'll give law enforcement the least amount of trouble. All talk...
 
Rich2018 said:
You made the claim that there is little to none (5% chance), now substantiate it.
Click to expand...

I already did: I've only heard one prominent person seriously suggest it, and there is no grass roots movement for repeal.

So that's my evidence. It's not much, but let's see what you've got. If you got other evidence, I'll adjust the 5% prediction.
 
aociswundumho said:
I already did: I've only heard one prominent person seriously suggest it, and there is no grass roots movement for repeal.
Click to expand...

Go on then post your evidence


Is your "evidence" just that YOU have only heard one source.

You know that's not "evidence" right ?

It's called an appeal from ignorance, you're arguing that X must be true because YOU are not aware of evidence that it's not

Except you admit to one source that it is, and ZERO sources that it is not.



You're not very good at this debating business are you ?

Post evidence for your claim or concede that at best you're wrong and at worst you're dishonest.
 
Rich2018 said:
You know that's not "evidence" right?
Click to expand...

No, it is evidence, it's just weak evidence.

Post evidence for your claim or concede that at best you're wrong and at worst you're dishonest.
Click to expand...

I said I believe there is a 5% chance of repeal, you said you believe the chances for repeal are "unlikely".

So far, I've provided more evidence for my claim than you have for yours. Besides a few words from Stevens, what else is there?
 
usaf77 said:
I'd define "chaos" as the big city Demokrat machines handling of violent criminals. Or should I say "non-handling".
Click to expand...

We dont torment “criminals” enough :roll:
 
Re: What "well regulated" means in the 2nd Amendment

danielpalos said:
Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and know what it is for.
Click to expand...

The people have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and know what it’s for.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Found a great video which explains the 2nd Amendment and what "well regulated" means.
YouTube
Click to expand...

Before watching : I'm guessing that this is going to be Prager U or something similar, and that the point is going to be that "well regulated" actually means that there can be no regulation at all.
 
So you’re willfully ignorant. Shocking. [emoji849]
 
This guy thinks that well regulated = well organized and well trained. Does this mean that the second amendment only covers people who are in a trained and organized militia? We might be able to come to some sort of agreement. In order to get the really deadly hardware, you need to be part of an organized paramilitary organization. Those organizations would be responsible for keeping track of their weapons, and if any are used inappropriately there will be consequences. That should keep the guns away from violent criminals and crazy school children. Or at least put a dent in it. And Reid Henrichs can keep his violent sedition fantasies.
 
Digger said:
This guy thinks that well regulated = well organized and well trained. Does this mean that the second amendment only covers people who are in a trained and organized militia? We might be able to come to some sort of agreement. In order to get the really deadly hardware, you need to be part of an organized paramilitary organization. Those organizations would be responsible for keeping track of their weapons, and if any are used inappropriately there will be consequences. That should keep the guns away from violent criminals and crazy school children. Or at least put a dent in it. And Reid Henrichs can keep his violent sedition fantasies.
Click to expand...

The populace merely needs to be capable through access to the individual arms (the type used by infantry/militia) and private training, facilities and organizations. All rights are choices, not obligations. With access to those things, we can expect a militia to be assembled capable of holding a line (which is what well regulated means).

Access to these weapons is founded in the right to self defense. It's required for a free state because a state that promises personal security is a tyrannical state. Self defense against the state itself, civil war, is a side note and antiquated if entertaining.
 
Last edited:
Digger said:
This guy thinks that well regulated = well organized and well trained. Does this mean that the second amendment only covers people who are in a trained and organized militia? We might be able to come to some sort of agreement. In order to get the really deadly hardware, you need to be part of an organized paramilitary organization. Those organizations would be responsible for keeping track of their weapons, and if any are used inappropriately there will be consequences. That should keep the guns away from violent criminals and crazy school children. Or at least put a dent in it. And Reid Henrichs can keep his violent sedition fantasies.
Click to expand...

The guy doesn’t just think that [emoji849]. The Amendment doesn’t say only the well regulated militia has the right to bear arms... so no.
 
Re: What "well regulated" means in the 2nd Amendment

Aberration said:
The people have literal recourse to our Second Amendment and know what it’s for.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of our free States not Individual Rights. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. That is how Good, our Founding Fathers were. All terms are collective and plural. There is no ambiguity in our federal Constitution.
 
Digger said:
Before watching : I'm guessing that this is going to be Prager U or something similar, and that the point is going to be that "well regulated" actually means that there can be no regulation at all.
Click to expand...

do you claim that the second amendment was intended to delegate the power to regulate arms to the federal government?
 
Re: What "well regulated" means in the 2nd Amendment

danielpalos said:
Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of our free States not Individual Rights. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. That is how Good, our Founding Fathers were. All terms are collective and plural. There is no ambiguity in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...

there is not a single living supreme court justice that agrees with your claim.
 
TurtleDude said:
do you claim that the second amendment was intended to delegate the power to regulate arms to the federal government?
Click to expand...

I think it's saying people have the right to weapons, but under regulation. That seems pretty straight forward.
 
Re: What "well regulated" means in the 2nd Amendment

TurtleDude said:
there is not a single living supreme court justice that agrees with your claim.
Click to expand...

Show us any Individual Terms in our Second Amendment.

States have authority over Individuals of the People.

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Click to expand...
 
aociswundumho said:
No, it is evidence, it's just weak evidence.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's called "hearsay" and using information that's available to you, but not to be is a contemptible way of arguing


I said I believe there is a 5% chance of repeal...
Click to expand...


And then admitted you pulled that figure out of your @ss


...you said you believe the chances for repeal are "unlikely".
Click to expand...

Yes


So far, I've provided more evidence for my claim than you have for yours. Besides a few words from Stevens, what else is there?
Click to expand...


You've provided no evidence, just information you claim to have gleaned.
And hearsay is not evidence.
 
Rich2018 said:
Nope, it's called "hearsay" and using information that's available to you, but not to be is a contemptible way of arguing





And then admitted you pulled that figure out of your @ss




Yes





You've provided no evidence, just information you claim to have gleaned.
And hearsay is not evidence.
Click to expand...

He said, "5%".

You claim, "Unlikely."

Where is the evidence for your claim? You have provided absolutely none for your own claim while demanding and then disregarding what evidence he supplied for his.

You understand both claims are very similar?
 
Rich2018 said:
Post #799




So yes he did, and admitted his source...none too dissimilar from where you get yours



You fail yet again.
Click to expand...


Your claim and his are virtually the same, though you truncated my post-deleting your own claim- to avoid that.

His claim...5%. Your claim...."Unlikely."

Your support for your claim is_______?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom