• 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!

SCOTUS said that the 2nd amendment allowed people to use guns for self defense

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The reasoning of SCOTUS for making weapons a personal right was that our forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to use them in self defense. I guess I wonder if the SCOTUS and our forefathers also meant to allow citizens to display their weapons as proof they can carry them where they want to and/or to use them to intimidate others as in the Michigan protests. It seems to me that many people have overstepped their right to carry or use weapons beyond the means to defend one self and ones home as cited by SCOTUS. Carrying a assault rifle strapped to ones chest and multiple magazines seems to be more than for self defense to me and should seem so to any reasonable human being.
 
independentusa said:
The reasoning of SCOTUS for making weapons a personal right was that our forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to use them in self defense. I guess I wonder if the SCOTUS and our forefathers also meant to allow citizens to display their weapons as proof they can carry them where they want to and/or to use them to intimidate others as in the Michigan protests. It seems to me that many people have overstepped their right to carry or use weapons beyond the means to defend one self and ones home as cited by SCOTUS. Carrying a assault rifle strapped to ones chest and multiple magazines seems to be more than for self defense to me and should seem so to any reasonable human being.
Click to expand...

Let's think your argument through. Police officers are not soldiers. Unlike soldiers, they are extremely limited to when they can shoot other civilians. Generally, the standards are similar to when private citizens can deploy deadly force: the police normally can only shoot when they have an objectively sound belief that failing to do so will result in the target seriously harming the police officer or others. In fact, sometimes police are held to a higher standard than a private citizen who has been attacked.

Given that fact, you seem to have no issue with police officers walking around in public with real assault rifles and multiple magazines. You seem to confuse the display of a firearm and accessories with the USE of said weapon
 
Oh I would be remiss in not correcting the error in our title. The second amendment prevents the government from interfering with the right to keep and bear arms. It is a restriction on the government, rather than a grant of action upon the citizenry
 
TurtleDude said:
Let's think your argument through. Police officers are not soldiers. Unlike soldiers, they are extremely limited to when they can shoot other civilians. Generally, the standards are similar to when private citizens can deploy deadly force: the police normally can only shoot when they have an objectively sound belief that failing to do so will result in the target seriously harming the police officer or others. In fact, sometimes police are held to a higher standard than a private citizen who has been attacked.

Given that fact, you seem to have no issue with police officers walking around in public with real assault rifles and multiple magazines. You seem to confuse the display of a firearm and accessories with the USE of said weapon
Click to expand...

Sometimes soldiers are held to a higher standard than police or civilians. It depends on the zone and the situation.
 
independentusa said:
The reasoning of SCOTUS for making weapons a personal right was that our forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to allow citizens to use them in self defense. I guess I wonder if the SCOTUS and our forefathers also meant to allow citizens to display their weapons as proof they can carry them where they want to and/or to use them to intimidate others as in the Michigan protests. It seems to me that many people have overstepped their right to carry or use weapons beyond the means to defend one self and ones home as cited by SCOTUS. Carrying a assault rifle strapped to ones chest and multiple magazines seems to be more than for self defense to me and should seem so to any reasonable human being.
Click to expand...

So why does the 2nd amendment make reference to "the security of a free State" and "a well regulated Militia" ?


Where does it mention "self defense" ?
 
Rich2018 said:
So why does the 2nd amendment make reference to "the security of a free State" and "a well regulated Militia" ?


Where does it mention "self defense" ?
Click to expand...

The founders were dealing with people who understood natural law and natural rights.
 
TurtleDude said:
The founders were dealing with people who understood natural law and natural rights.
Click to expand...

I dispute there is such a thing as natural law.

The founders were dealing with other 18th century men with 18th century, mostly, muzzle loading firearms.
 
TurtleDude said:
Oh I would be remiss in not correcting the error in our title. The second amendment prevents the government from interfering with the right to keep and bear arms. It is a restriction on the government, rather than a grant of action upon the citizenry
Click to expand...

Hey TD good catch on that title. Hell I looked right at it and didn't see we were "allowed".
 
TurtleDude said:
Let's think your argument through. Police officers are not soldiers. Unlike soldiers, they are extremely limited to when they can shoot other civilians. Generally, the standards are similar to when private citizens can deploy deadly force: the police normally can only shoot when they have an objectively sound belief that failing to do so will result in the target seriously harming the police officer or others. In fact, sometimes police are held to a higher standard than a private citizen who has been attacked.

Given that fact, you seem to have no issue with police officers walking around in public with real assault rifles and multiple magazines. You seem to confuse the display of a firearm and accessories with the USE of said weapon
Click to expand...

^^^ Fallacy of false equivalency.

Police are not the equivalent of citizen
 
Rich2018 said:
So why does the 2nd amendment make reference to "the security of a free State" and "a well regulated Militia" ?


Where does it mention "self defense" ?
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment doesn't say that per se. However in the Declaration of Independence it does say "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,"
We shall stop at that point. You have the right to LIFE not the right to die. I guess of course it's your life and yours alone and it's what you want.
 
jamesbyoung said:
^^^ Fallacy of false equivalency.

Police are not the equivalent of citizen
Click to expand...

A SWAT team is made up of policemen and when clearing a building, their rules of engagement do seem "extremely limited" at all.
 
jamesbyoung said:
^^^ Fallacy of false equivalency.

Police are not the equivalent of citizen
Click to expand...

Police are usually civilians: and I am pretty well versed on their use of force protocols since I used to represent a county sheriff's department (state) and federal law enforcement agencies (FBI, DEA, USMS, ATF, IRS-CID, Postal Inspectors etc)
 
=Rich2018;1071803217]I dispute there is such a thing as natural law.
Click to expand...

"Natural law is a theory in ethics and philosophy that says that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law maintains that these rules of right and wrong are inherent in people and are not created by society or court judges.
And yes about 15-20 with a google search (for a good phrase). Just think when people started getting together in caves. Easy to see why you may not believe in it.
The founders were dealing with other 18th century men with 18th century, mostly, muzzle loading firearms.
Click to expand...

Yeah your people and their hi tech muzzle loaders. LOL.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
Let's think your argument through. Police officers are not soldiers. Unlike soldiers, they are extremely limited to when they can shoot other civilians. Generally, the standards are similar to when private citizens can deploy deadly force: the police normally can only shoot when they have an objectively sound belief that failing to do so will result in the target seriously harming the police officer or others. In fact, sometimes police are held to a higher standard than a private citizen who has been attacked.

Given that fact, you seem to have no issue with police officers walking around in public with real assault rifles and multiple magazines. You seem to confuse the display of a firearm and accessories with the USE of said weapon
Click to expand...

I do not even understand how you can compare the role that police play and those of a bunch of hooligans using their weapons, not for any kind of self defense, but to intimidate others.
 
Rich2018 said:
So why does the 2nd amendment make reference to "the security of a free State" and "a well regulated Militia" ?


Where does it mention "self defense" ?
Click to expand...

Do yo ever isten or read what the SCOTUS has said when approving the right under the second amendment to be an individual right rather then the ability to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia They said it was the right to self defense. SCOTUS made the right out of the wording set forth in the 2nd Amendment, you can arge that with them.
 
TurtleDude said:
Police are usually civilians: and I am pretty well versed on their use of force protocols since I used to represent a county sheriff's department (state) and federal law enforcement agencies (FBI, DEA, USMS, ATF, IRS-CID, Postal Inspectors etc)
Click to expand...

Your "version" is always affected by your extreme libertarianism. No, they are not the same as civilians.
 
independentusa said:
Do yo ever isten or read what the SCOTUS has said when approving the right under the second amendment to be an individual right rather then the ability to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia They said it was the right to self defense. SCOTUS made the right out of the wording set forth in the 2nd Amendment, you can arge that with them.
Click to expand...

So when SCOTUS gets around to limiting for civilians no weapons in "a weapons of war" category, you will support it period.
 
independentusa said:
I do not even understand how you can compare the role that police play and those of a bunch of hooligans using their weapons, not for any kind of self defense, but to intimidate others.
Click to expand...

His woo libertarianism constricts his analysis.
 
TurtleDude said:
The founders were dealing with people who understood natural law and natural rights.
Click to expand...

this mythical "natural law" and "natural rights" are nothing but horse manure to trot out when facts are unavailable to argue your position
 
jamesbyoung said:
So when SCOTUS gets around to limiting for civilians no weapons in "a weapons of war" category, you will support it period.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing that you can not use those weapons for real self defense, I am saying that by wearing them in the Michigan state house strapped to their chest and with more magazines showing, they are not using them in a posture of self defense, but as an attempt to intimidate, which is not covered by the 2nd Amendment interpretation by SCOTUS. It is like yelling fire in a crowded theater is not covered by the 1st Amendment even though it is speech.
 
independentusa said:
I am not arguing that you can not use those weapons for real self defense, I am saying that by wearing them in the Michigan state house strapped to their chest and with more magazines showing, they are not using them in a posture of self defense, but as an attempt to intimidate, which is not covered by the 2nd Amendment interpretation by SCOTUS. It is like yelling fire in a crowded theater is not covered by the 1st Amendment even though it is speech.
Click to expand...

I agree that being armed like banditti is not free speech. They should be arrested, disarmed, and their arms auctioned off to feed the poor.
 
justabubba said:
this mythical "natural law" and "natural rights" are nothing but horse manure to trot out when facts are unavailable to argue your position
Click to expand...

Give the goofy 2dA right muskets and call it even.
 
independentusa said:
I do not even understand how you can compare the role that police play and those of a bunch of hooligans using their weapons, not for any kind of self defense, but to intimidate others.
Click to expand...

you don't understand the fact that the laws concerning the USE of deadly force are essentially the same. do police carry weapons to intimidate? Yeah, lots of people would say they do.
 
jamesbyoung said:
Your "version" is always affected by your extreme libertarianism. No, they are not the same as civilians.
Click to expand...

there are two types of citizens-military and civilian. I was a federal law enforcement officer. FBI, DEA, USMS, etc are all civilian employees of the federal government. I am "affected" by the fact that I know the law and you apparently do not.
 
justabubba said:
this mythical "natural law" and "natural rights" are nothing but horse manure to trot out when facts are unavailable to argue your position
Click to expand...

that's really stupid but let me educate you. Does natural law exist? I don't care. Do natural rights exist? I don't care. What I care about is what the founders INTENDED. and they intended that the Bill of rights guarantee-with force of law-their views concerning natural law and natural rights. You cannot understand the constitution and the bill of rights if you don't understand natural law and natural rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom