• 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 Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?

  • You can have any gun you want and no one can stop you.

    Votes: 15 34.9%

  • You can have any ARM you want. Why stop at guns? Knives, grenades, nunchucks, tanks...it's all good!

    Votes: 8 18.6%

  • Yeah, you can have a gun, but there are limits to that right, like every other right.

    Votes: 15 34.9%

  • You can have a gun so you can join in a militia instead of having a standing army.

    Votes: 7 16.3%

  • You can have an 18th century single-shot firearm and no one can stop you.

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • You and your gun cannot be singled out by the government, it has to follow it's own laws

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • As a principle you should have the right to a gun, but we're not going to explain how.

    Votes: 4 9.3%

  • It's purposefully vague.

    Votes: 4 9.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 10 23.3%
  • Total voters
    43
Joe Steel said:
The Second Amendment is the least clear and most misunderstood of the ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights. Likely that is because it deals with an arcane principle of self government. Be assured, it has nothing to do with guns, knives or any other weapon whether suitable for use in combat or not.

During the American Revolution, the colonists faced a professional army, that is, an army of persons who were in the army either because they wanted to be or because they were forced into it. The British army was not an army of common citizens called to arms to defend their communities. Consequently, these professionals had no reason to be particularly concerned about what they did as soldiers. Their lives and their professional success were tied to their performance as soldiers. If they were called-upon to abuse the citizens of the colonies, so be it. Following orders was the only thing that mattered because that resulted in promotions or, at least, no punishment. This was the standing army the Founders feared. Its loyalty was to itself not to the People.

To obviate the problem, the Founders wished to create a citizen army, an army of common citizens who would not abuse the rights of the People. Such an army, a militia could be trusted where a professional army could not. The Second Amendment declares for the People a right to a citizen army. In saying "keep and bear arms," it says the People may create and manage their citizen army and serve in it themselves. That phrase, widely and wildly misunderstood, is not about owning and carrying guns.
Click to expand...

stated by South Carolina representative Mr. Scott, during the congressional debate on the Bill of Rights...Aug 1789

"This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army."

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

2nd amendment
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious [*criminal] attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.---William Rawle, , who in 1791 was appointed as United States district attorney in Pennsylvania by G. Washington
 
Harshaw said:
You seem rather surprised that there are divergent views on the matter, and your responses indicate you haven't looked into much of this. I suggest poring through the Gun Control and US Constitution sections; it's all -- and I do mean all -- been said in there.

So yeah, it matters, because a 497th discussion about it doesn't add much value.
Click to expand...

especially to those of us who are experts on this topic and tired of seeing the same idiotic claims (like the second only applies to 18th century weapons) presented as if they are novel or convincing
 
TurtleDude said:
especially to those of us who are experts on this topic and tired of seeing the same idiotic claims (like the second only applies to 18th century weapons) presented as if they are novel or convincing
Click to expand...

Pretty much.
 
ernst barkmann said:
stated by South Carolina representative Mr. Scott, during the congressional debate on the Bill of Rights...Aug 1789

"This would lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army."

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

2nd amendment
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious [*criminal] attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.---William Rawle, , who in 1791 was appointed as United States district attorney in Pennsylvania by G. Washington
Click to expand...

As I said in my posting, the Second Amendment deals with an arcane principle of government. Misunderstanding is not uncommon nor are comments made on the basis of misunderstanding.
 
Joe Steel said:
As I said in my posting, the Second Amendment deals with an arcane principle of government. Misunderstanding is not uncommon nor are comments made on the basis of misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

what exactly are you trying to say
 
Harshaw said:
You seem rather surprised that there are divergent views on the matter, and your responses indicate you haven't looked into much of this. I suggest poring through the Gun Control and US Constitution sections; it's all -- and I do mean all -- been said in there.

So yeah, it matters, because a 497th discussion about it doesn't add much value.
Click to expand...

I see you have been on this forum for nearly 8 years. You can see I have not. I would rather have a conversation than to read through 8 years of old threads.
 
Harshaw said:
You seem rather surprised that there are divergent views on the matter, and your responses indicate you haven't looked into much of this. I suggest poring through the Gun Control and US Constitution sections; it's all -- and I do mean all -- been said in there.

So yeah, it matters, because a 497th discussion about it doesn't add much value.
Click to expand...

And why would I be surprised that there are different viewpoints? I posed the multiple choice question in the first place.
 
aberrant85 said:
I see you have been on this forum for nearly 8 years. You can see I have not. I would rather have a conversation than to read through 8 years of old threads.
Click to expand...

Well, then don't labor under the idea that you've got anything to say which hasn't already been said.
 
Harshaw said:
Well, then don't labor under the idea that you've got anything to say which hasn't already been said.
Click to expand...

and those of us who have dealt with the same silly arguments over and over have sharpened our knives and tend to cut much faster and deeper into mindless psychobabble than those who have not seen it before
 
TurtleDude said:
and those of us who have dealt with the same silly arguments over and over have sharpened our knives and tend to cut much faster and deeper into mindless psychobabble than those who have not seen it before
Click to expand...

Yes; everything he's said has been refuted, dismissed, and swatted away countless times.
 
TurtleDude said:
and those of us who have dealt with the same silly arguments over and over have sharpened our knives and tend to cut much faster and deeper into mindless psychobabble than those who have not seen it before
Click to expand...

Congratulations.

Harshaw said:
Well, then don't labor under the idea that you've got anything to say which hasn't already been said.
Click to expand...

Before you take this all too seriously, remember that we would be in government setting policy, not arguing on the internet, if any of us really had any authority. Discussing things that have already been discussed ad nauseum is basically what sites like this are for. So don't let your seniority get to your head.
 
aberrant85 said:
Congratulations.



Before you take this all too seriously, remember that we would be in government setting policy, not arguing on the internet, if any of us really had any authority. Discussing things that have already been discussed ad nauseum is basically what sites like this are for. So don't let your seniority get to your head.
Click to expand...

that's an interesting way of trying to defend one of the really dumb arguments

that the second amendment only applies to muskets
 
aberrant85 said:
Before you take this all too seriously, remember that we would be in government setting policy, not arguing on the internet
Click to expand...

Ummm . . . there are those who are doing both, actually.

Discussing things that have already been discussed ad nauseum is basically what sites like this are for. So don't let your seniority get to your head.
Click to expand...

It's not my "seniority." Chronology is of no matter; there are idiots who have stayed idiots and spouted the same nonsense the whole time I've been here. It's my expertise and experience.
 
Joe Steel said:
The Second Amendment is not about guns. It's about the nature of the military.
Click to expand...

actually its about a pre existing right that involves citizens being well armed
 
TurtleDude said:
actually its about a pre existing right that involves citizens being well armed
Click to expand...

It is not.

The Second Amendment is a stylistic disaster which attempts to declare for the People a right to control the military. It speaks of "the right to keep and bear arms" as if it existed but, in fact, is, itself, the source of the right.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's an interesting way of trying to defend one of the really dumb arguments

that the second amendment only applies to muskets
Click to expand...

It's a defense of making "dumb" arguments.

Still, having an originalist interpretation of the constitution and also saying that it covers aspects of the future that could never have been predicted is contradictory.
 
Joe Steel said:
It is not.

The Second Amendment is a stylistic disaster which attempts to declare for the People a right to control the military. It speaks of "the right to keep and bear arms" as if it existed but, in fact, is, itself, the source of the right.
Click to expand...

that has so many errors I don't know where to begin. You completely reject the entire premise upon which the constitution is based and apparently don't understand the concept of inalienable rights
 
aberrant85 said:
It's a defense of making "dumb" arguments.

Still, having an originalist interpretation of the constitution and also saying that it covers aspects of the future that could never have been predicted is contradictory.
Click to expand...

You fail on many grounds

repeating firearms were in existence in 1789 or so and contemplating that firearms would fire more rapidly in the future was common among weapons designers. Far more achievable with the technology that existed then then say the internet, television, or even electrically powered printing presses.
 
TurtleDude said:
that has so many errors I don't know where to begin. You completely reject the entire premise upon which the constitution is based and apparently don't understand the concept of inalienable rights
Click to expand...

In alienable rights are not a part of the Constitution. Neither they nor any other kind of right are its basis.
 
Joe Steel said:
In alienable rights are not a part of the Constitution. Neither they nor any other kind of right are its basis.
Click to expand...

they are what the constitution was premised on

do you set forth these silly arguments because

1) you are ignorant of constitutional history

2) you actually realize that most of the wet dreams of gun restrictions entertained by "very liberal" posters are contrary to a proper understanding of the second and tenth amendments so you have to come up with an alter-world interpretation that doesn't bitch slap your cravings for more gun restrictions?
 
aberrant85 said:
It's a defense of making "dumb" arguments.

Still, having an originalist interpretation of the constitution and also saying that it covers aspects of the future that could never have been predicted is contradictory.
Click to expand...

Not if you bothered to find out what the original intent was, it isn't. The men who wrote the Constitution weren't idiots. They referred to freedoms and rights knowing full well that the concepts would remain the same even when details change. And when the Constitution actually proved inadequate for the state of future affairs? They included an amendment process to deal with it.

This, of course, is a far more reasonable and honest approach than simply saying "oh, they couldn't have known, so we'll pretend the words means what we want them to mean."
 
Joe Steel said:
In alienable rights are not a part of the Constitution. Neither they nor any other kind of right are its basis.
Click to expand...

the bill of rights wasn't written to give us our rights it was written to keep government from taking them away . the bill of rights was written as a limiting document not an enabling document
 
trfjr said:
the bill of rights wasn't written to give us our rights it was written to keep government from taking them away . the bill of rights was written as a limiting document not an enabling document
Click to expand...


sadly, many liberals work backwards. They start with the premise that the rights of conservative gun owners need to be curtailed and then try to interpret the second amendment so as to allow that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom