• 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!

Is the right to bear arms a civil right?

Is the right to bear arms a civil right?

  • Yes

    Votes: 37 63.8%

  • No

    Votes: 10 17.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 11 19.0%
  • Total voters
    58
MoSurveyor said:
I don't think there should be any possibility of Fed interference. The local militia should be exactly that, local - and for defense only.
Click to expand...
Well, there is. It's actually illegal to send a state Guard unit to a foreign country to engage in offensive warfare, because a Governor does not have the authority to attack a country. So what happens now, and you can thank Vietnam for this, is when you enlist in your state Guard, you also simultaneously enlist in The National Guard Of The United States, a Federal outfit answering to the President.

Today most of our forces in Afghanistan are Guard units, but that doesn't keep the other branches from talking **** anyway.
 
I accept the criticism that the unorganized militia has only the training individual people seek out for themselves. That's why I support mandatory service. You at least have that initial training, and if the militia is called up you will have that to fall back on.

No, a militia unit is not as effective as an Army. That's the point. You don't want a full-time Army hanging around...they tend to start doing exactly what they're trained to do. Even in the event of foreign invasion by a regular army of another nation, the militia is not the primary defensive force. The militia is used to harass the enemy, to slow them down and divide them. You still need the Guard to be the backbone.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Showing how those units were used in foreign wars is exactly why I don't want the forced militia to be under Fed control.
Click to expand...
That's a big reason why I want people to be forced to belong to the Guard...so that if you don't want to personally visit a foreign war, maybe you'll stop voting in people who take us to them.
 
Jerry said:
Well, there is. It's actually illegal to send a state Guard unit to a foreign country to engage in offensive warfare, because a Governor does not have the authority to attack a country. So what happens now, and you can thank Vietnam for this, is when you enlist in your state Guard, you also simultaneously enlist in The National Guard Of The United States, a Federal outfit answering to the President.

Today most of our forces in Afghanistan are Guard units, but that doesn't keep the other branches from talking **** anyway.
Click to expand...
I wasn't disagreeing with what you had said.

I simply said a militia - NOT the NG - shouldn't be under any Fed control at all. I don't think the Fed should have any say in how forced state militias, if we go that route, are deployed. The Fed should be able to request but not coerce.
 
Muddy Creek said:
It's a right for a militia to do so.
Click to expand...

no.. it's a right of the people to do so.

a well regulated militia, necessary to a free state ...is the enumerated reason the federal government is forbidden from infringing on the right of the people to keep an bear arms.

you posses a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment, the English language, and the US Constitution.
 
Jerry said:
That's a big reason why I want people to be forced to belong to the Guard...so that if you don't want to personally visit a foreign war, maybe you'll stop voting in people who take us to them.
Click to expand...
That wasn't what I had in mind at all, then. I don't want the forced state militia to be part of the National Guard.
 
MoSurveyor said:
That wasn't what I had in mind at all, then. I don't want the forced state militia to be part of the National Guard.
Click to expand...
The state guard is not part of the federal Guard...it IS the federal Guard.
 
Jerry said:
The state guard is not part of the federal Guard...it IS the federal Guard.
Click to expand...
I didn't say "state guard", I said "state militia", meaning a militia where participation is mandatory and that currently does not exist. I have no wish to see people forced to join the National Guard, since they can be forced into service for the Fed and, at least here, often not kept local for training. I don't know how much more plain I can be.
 
Last edited:
Muddy Creek said:
Your "militia" now is just a bunch of racists…
Click to expand...

544521_586524941358420_1446426802_n.jpg
 
Muddy Creek said:
Oh, I get it. You're a "Sons of Anarchy" kinda guy whose definition of his sexual abilities is through the size of his gun.
Click to expand...

There ought to be some recognized principle in gun control discussions, somewhat akin to Godwin's Law, which holds that when a hoplophobe resorts to projecting his own real or perceived sexual inadequacies in this manner against those who support the right to keep and bear arms, that this is an admission that the debate is over and that the hoplophobe has lost.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
A civil right is defined as such:

"civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."

Underlined portion is emphasis added by me. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom and privledge provided to people by reason of citizenship. So would it be something that would be considered a "civil right"?
Click to expand...

I think it could also be argued that it's an extension of the human right to life.
 
dnsmith said:
What a pile of horse puckey!

I hear people whine about the NRA and how some are subservient to the NRA's wishes. They have it backwards, the NRA is subservient to the free people of the US and they serve our needs.

Nothing like a fresh deer or wild hog in the freezer to subsidize our annual meals.
Click to expand...

Or a roasted schoolchild, I suppose. By their fruits shall ye know them. Peoples without the NRA have immensely fewer murders, lie as the gunmen may.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
This from an “obedient serf” in a land where nearly all people are serfs and subjects, and who has no idea what it means to be a true citizen, as we are over here.
Click to expand...
Apart from your undoubted ability to murder children and discriminate on grounds of 'race', name me one way in which you peasants are free that we aren't. Your Eighteenth Century drivel is getting smelly and mouldy as your masters reduce your standard of living, serf.
 
Penderyn said:
Apart from your undoubted ability to murder children and discriminate on grounds of 'race', name me one way in which you peasants are free that we aren't. Your Eighteenth Century drivel is getting smelly and mouldy as your masters reduce your standard of living, serf.
Click to expand...

you seem rather bitter. guess what-we are Americans, we really don't care about the Aesop Fox syndrome from across the pond
 
Zyphlin said:
A civil right is defined as such:

"civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."

Underlined portion is emphasis added by me. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom and privledge provided to people by reason of citizenship. So would it be something that would be considered a "civil right"?
Click to expand...

The right to own firearms is not merely a right by virtue of citizenship, it is a human right.

Incidentally, you are using the phrase "keep and bear arms" ahistorically. Similar to the phrase "hue and cry," leep and bear arms" was originally a legal term of art that applied to military service, and does not relate to the right of an individual to own and use weapons. The right to "keep and bear arms," as it was originally meant by the Framers, is an obsolete notion that has been superseded by the fundamental right of gun ownership by all people when the second amendment was changed by the Supreme Court in Heller.
 
Penderyn said:
Apart from your undoubted ability to murder children and discriminate on grounds of 'race', name me one way in which you peasants are free that we aren't. Your Eighteenth Century drivel is getting smelly and mouldy as your masters reduce your standard of living, serf.
Click to expand...
Are you saying bombs couldn't be assembled and transported into schools in the UK?!? LOL! You should know better than that. Yes, we have our issue with violence but guns don't really make it worse and they sure aren't the problem.
 
Zyphlin said:
A civil right is defined as such:

"civil right: right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."

Underlined portion is emphasis added by me. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental freedom and privledge provided to people by reason of citizenship. So would it be something that would be considered a "civil right"?
Click to expand...

No, I consider it a human right not a civil right. Some countries protect this right and others don't, but it is a fundamental human right.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The right to own firearms is not merely a right by virtue of citizenship, it is a human right.

Incidentally, you are using the phrase "keep and bear arms" ahistorically. Similar to the phrase "hue and cry," leep and bear arms" was originally a legal term of art that applied to military service, and does not relate to the right of an individual to own and use weapons. The right to "keep and bear arms," as it was originally meant by the Framers, is an obsolete notion that has been superseded by the fundamental right of gun ownership by all people when the second amendment was changed by the Supreme Court in Heller.
Click to expand...

completely wrong. the right of citizens to keep and bear arms was presumed to be an inalienable right with military service not a requirement for that right to vest
 
TurtleDude said:
you seem rather bitter. guess what-we are Americans, we really don't care about the Aesop Fox syndrome from across the pond
Click to expand...

Nobody cares twopence about you - it is the children you gunmen murder and help to murder we care about.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Are you saying bombs couldn't be assembled and transported into schools in the UK?!? LOL! You should know better than that. Yes, we have our issue with violence but guns don't really make it worse and they sure aren't the problem.
Click to expand...

People don't because we are not brainwashed nutters, you see. Ban guns and arrest gunmen befiore they kill.
 
Penderyn said:
Nobody cares twopence about you - it is the children you gunmen murder and help to murder we care about.
Click to expand...

typical gun hater silliness. lumping law abiding gun owners with criminals. In reality, its the mentality of the victim disarmament nuts who cause children to be killed and indeed, gun haters often look forward to such massacres in order to use the deaths to advance their nefarious agendas
 
Moderator's Warning:
Next person to attempt to label the people they're debating with "nuts" by trying to hide it under the guise of a generic wide spread label is going to get thread banned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom