• 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!

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

Are pro-2nd Amendment?

  • Total voters
    69
TurtleDude said:
...You support the NYC gun laws and that means you approve of honest people being denied the right to keep, bear or carry arms
Click to expand...

and yet, lots of folks in NYC own lots of guns.

I have two co-workers with lots of handguns & rifles.

so your ridiculous idea that supporting NYC's gun-laws says that one is against the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, is well.....ridiculous.

or...simply lies.
 
Thunder said:
and yet, lots of folks in NYC own lots of guns.

I have two co-workers with lots of handguns & rifles.

so your ridiculous idea that supporting NYC's gun-laws says that one is against the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, is well.....ridiculous.

or...simply lies.
Click to expand...

simple question

do you support the NYC gun laws


I oppose them as does just about any other sane person

all we need is a YES or a NO
 
Thunder said:
ah, so anyone who supports NYC's gun-laws, is insane?

funny, the USSR used to say the same thing about folks who were "counter-Revolutionary".
Click to expand...

again we tire of your evasions

simple yes or no

(I already know the answer-this is for those who haven't read your numerous posts about how great the NYC gun laws are)
 
Cephus said:
The whole part about belonging to a well-regulated militia too?
Click to expand...

We are all already members of the militia under the law, and it's not possible for the militia to be "well-regulated" if its members do not have the legal authority to equip themselves appropriately to carry out their duties. Thus in order for there to be a "well-regulated militia" for the individual citizens to be members of-- which is described as a Constitutional necessity-- the right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed by the government.

By my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the Federal government is Constitutionally obligated to provide a minimum standard of militia training to every eligible member of the militia, regardless of whether or not they enlist in the "organized militia", and the government's continued failure to uphold this obligation in no way invalidates the rest of the 2nd Amendment, especially given that the guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is essential for the government to be able to uphold their Constitutional obligation at a later date.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
...(I already know the answer-this is for those who haven't read your numerous posts about how great the NYC gun laws are)
Click to expand...

you are asking questions to which you already know the answer to?

what an amazing waste of time. I don't feel the need to play your juvenile & ignorant games.

sorry.
 
Thunder said:
you are asking questions to which you already know the answer to?

what an amazing waste of time. I don't feel the need to play your juvenile & ignorant games.

sorry.
Click to expand...

its amazing that you are the only one who is a multiple poster on this thread who has not voted

we know you support the NYC gun laws which means you are against the second amendment as properly interpreted
 
Just for levity... I don't really have a poignant response as of yet. But, someone mentioned a Barrett... feel free to skip to about the 15 second mark.



This guy got lucky.
 
I'm for the right to responsible weapon ownership. However, I oppose allowing anyone to own an atomic bomb.
 
Luna Tick said:
I'm for the right to responsible weapon ownership. However, I oppose allowing anyone to own an atomic bomb.
Click to expand...

Hedging your bets huh?:mrgreen:
 
Luna Tick said:
I'm for the right to responsible weapon ownership. However, I oppose allowing anyone to own an atomic bomb.
Click to expand...

Yep. Least of all the government.

Dittohead not! said:
but that's infringing my right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Hey, you can kill a man with a gun. Kill as many men as you want. But you can kill a species with nukes, and that's not okay.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
We are all already members of the militia under the law, and it's not possible for the militia to be "well-regulated" if its members do not have the legal authority to equip themselves appropriately to carry out their duties. Thus in order for there to be a "well-regulated militia" for the individual citizens to be members of-- which is described as a Constitutional necessity-- the right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed by the government.
Click to expand...

The problem is, we're not all members of the militia. Without a draft, we cannot be called to military service at a moment's notice and even in the event of a draft, not only could we not bring our own weapons, we would be prohibited from doing so. Therefore, the right to bear arms has absolutely no bearing on the modern-day "militia". We have to look at what was written in the context of the time at which it was written and understand their intent. Like it or not, the Constitution cannot be reasonably expected to deal with situations that the founding fathers could not have conceivably foreseen.

By my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the Federal government is Constitutionally obligated to provide a minimum standard of militia training to every eligible member of the militia, regardless of whether or not they enlist in the "organized militia", and the government's continued failure to uphold this obligation in no way invalidates the rest of the 2nd Amendment, especially given that the guaranteed right to keep and bear arms is essential for the government to be able to uphold their Constitutional obligation at a later date.
Click to expand...

When do you think they'll be doing that?
 
TurtleDude said:
the potential of being in the militia was a sufficient reason not a necessary one

and more importantly, the federal government was never delegated the power to regulate small arms thus the 9th and Tenth amendments are actually more important
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing against private ownership of weapons, more against the people who seem to think they ought to be able to own anything and everything, from RPGs to tanks to nukes, because they interpret the second amendment absurdly broadly.
 
Cephus said:
The problem is, we're not all members of the militia. Without a draft, we cannot be called to military service at a moment's notice and even in the event of a draft, not only could we not bring our own weapons, we would be prohibited from doing so.
Click to expand...

Conscription isn't a function of the militia-- that's the function of the standing military, which our Founding Fathers opposed. Now, I'm not opposed to having a standing army at all, but I think that this is in addition to the militia and should never be considered a replacement for the militia, which is an essential institution in any free society. The militia is an all-volunteer force whose individual members answer the call to arms at their own discretion.

Cephus said:
Therefore, the right to bear arms has absolutely no bearing on the modern-day "militia". We have to look at what was written in the context of the time at which it was written and understand their intent. Like it or not, the Constitution cannot be reasonably expected to deal with situations that the founding fathers could not have conceivably foreseen.
Click to expand...

The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the United States would rely entirely on its militia instead of fielding a standing army. While they certainly could have foreseen our modern military, they would have been opposed to it and wrote the 2nd Amendment-- and other articles of militia law-- to ensure that the militia could serve as an adequate replacement.

Cephus said:
When do you think they'll be doing that?
Click to expand...

Never, unfortunately. But pessimism about their willingness to do the right thing is no excuse for removing their ability to do the right thing.
 
Cephus said:
I'm not arguing against private ownership of weapons, more against the people who seem to think they ought to be able to own anything and everything, from RPGs to tanks to nukes, because they interpret the second amendment absurdly broadly.
Click to expand...

The second amendment doesn't say guns, but arms. If allowing RPGs and bombs is interpreting it absurdly broadly, why isn't general ownership of guns of whatever sort the purchaser wants the same?
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
The intent of the Founding Fathers was that the United States would rely entirely on its militia instead of fielding a standing army. While they certainly could have foreseen our modern military, they would have been opposed to it and wrote the 2nd Amendment-- and other articles of militia law-- to ensure that the militia could serve as an adequate replacement.
Click to expand...

The problem is, we agree that the modern U.S. is not something that the founding fathers would have wanted, clearly what they wrote in the founding documents can no longer be said to be applicable to the modern world, with a military situation outside of their intent, then people take the second amendment, which is a single sentence, strip off the first half of that sentence, and pretend that they're following the intent of the founding fathers?

And then they do backflips desperately trying to rationalize that action. I don't get it.
 
Their intent to support the militia and their intent to not have a standing army are separate issues. We can have a standing army, against the Founders' intent, and still follow their intent as it pertains to the militia and the rights thereof.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Their intent to support the militia and their intent to not have a standing army are separate issues. We can have a standing army, against the Founders' intent, and still follow their intent as it pertains to the militia and the rights thereof.
Click to expand...

And so long as that militia is well-regulated, as they intended, I have no problem with that. When do you think that's going to happen?
 
Cephus said:
And so long as that militia is well-regulated, as they intended, I have no problem with that. When do you think that's going to happen?
Click to expand...

You are putting the cart before the horse. The militia cannot be properly supported and function as intended until it is allowed to operate as it was intended to-- our immoral and unconstitutional gun laws are preventing the militia from serving its intended purpose, and then you are using its failure to function as intended to justify those immoral and unconstitutional laws. I know you're not a Brady man, but the argument you're making here was taken directly from their playbook; this is what operations like Fast & Furious were all about.
 
This is how I understand The Militia: it is a reserve force, made up of every-day folks, to be called up in the case of an emergency that the regular armed forces cannot handle alone.

the Militia was created because the USA had a very small army. This is why The Militia was called up in such great numbers during the Civil War.

but now, we have a huge military, and most of the functions of the Militia have been taken by the State National Guard, which is often times called "the State Militia".

clearly, things between 1789 and 2011 have changed a lot, and what was needed back then..is not needed now.

but, folks don't want to Amend the 2nd Amendment, so even though it make sense to do it, it shall not happen.
 
Why bother amending it when every tinpot would-be dictator in the country thinks he can just ignore it? Gun grabbers are as bad as pro-lifers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom