• 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!

Do you believe in the 2nd Amendement?

Do you believe in the 2nd Amendement?

  • Total voters
    54
  • Poll closed .
TurtleDude said:
well you are wrong. the second, like other parts of the BOR, was intended to guarantee a right that the founders clearly indicted PRE EXISTED the creation of the constitution and to which the federal government was never given any proper power to restrict. whether "natural rights" "EXIST" is not the issue. the issue is what the founders intended and they intended that the federal government have no such power
Click to expand...

That the founders BELIEVED. I'm not interested in what they believed, I'm interested in what's actually true. We can't run society based on someone's belief, only on what's true in demonstrable reality.

Try again.
 
Cephus said:
That the founders BELIEVED. I'm not interested in what they believed, I'm interested in what's actually true. We can't run society based on someone's belief, only on what's true in demonstrable reality.

Try again.
Click to expand...

so if the founders believed and INTENDED that the second amendment guaranteed a right for all citizens, that should be ignored and the right be limited to keep anti gun or big government fans happy? do you realize how ridiculous your claim is? (that being-I don't care what was intended, I will read the amendment the way I want to)
 
TurtleDude said:
so if the founders believed and INTENDED that the second amendment guaranteed a right for all citizens, that should be ignored and the right be limited to keep anti gun or big government fans happy? do you realize how ridiculous your claim is? (that being-I don't care what was intended, I will read the amendment the way I want to)
Click to expand...

No, that definitely matters. If they believed those rights were endowed by some higher authority...*that* doesnt matter IMO.
 
Lursa said:
No, that definitely matters. If they believed those rights were endowed by some higher authority...*that* doesnt matter IMO.
Click to expand...

there is no doubt that the founders intended the second amendment to prevent federal intervention in this area. Those who claim that the second amendment only applies to those who have enrolled in the militia (a "well regulated militia" is one that has formed and elected officers and is ready to deploy) is put in the untenable position of claiming that a right the founders believed pre-existed the new government requires MEMBERSHIP in a government run organization to vest
 
YorkshirePete said:
Too simple.
Do a PHD on it and come back instead of regurgitating what you believe.
In your garage with a gun across your knees waiting for the terrorists?
Suggest you start with home grown white boys, as the church shooter
Click to expand...

Regurgitating what I believe? ROTFLOL.

I asked a question, and I posted the text of the 2nd Amendment. Nothing more.

YorkyPete... I do love the cadence of your prose... it’s got yer hometown sing-song.

PS. You do realize the right to bear arms is the best friend of a woman? It’s her best chance of defense against an unarmed male. It’s saved a lot of women from rape and murder.

Ever think of that?
 
TurtleDude said:
there is no doubt that the founders intended the second amendment to prevent federal intervention in this area. Those who claim that the second amendment only applies to those who have enrolled in the militia (a "well regulated militia" is one that has formed and elected officers and is ready to deploy) is put in the untenable position of claiming that a right the founders believed pre-existed the new government requires MEMBERSHIP in a government run organization to vest
Click to expand...

As far as I saw, that was not being disputed in the sub-conversation.
 
Johnson said:
It's an argument that exists. Regardless of if you personally care.
Click to expand...

It's still a bad argument, based on nothing but immature emotionalism.
 
TurtleDude said:
so if the founders believed and INTENDED that the second amendment guaranteed a right for all citizens, that should be ignored and the right be limited to keep anti gun or big government fans happy? do you realize how ridiculous your claim is? (that being-I don't care what was intended, I will read the amendment the way I want to)
Click to expand...

No, I believe that if you're going to make a case, it needs to be made based on evidence, reason and logic, not on someone's wishful thinking.
 
Cephus said:
No, I believe that if you're going to make a case, it needs to be made based on evidence, reason and logic, not on someone's wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

you are missing the point once again Its not "wishful thinking". ITs what the founders clearly set forth in their speeches notes and letters and what leading constitutional law scholars-St George Tucker and the justice I cited stated. Same with the USSC case of Cruikshank

why don't you tell us what you think it means and where you find support for that
 
TurtleDude said:
you are missing the point once again Its not "wishful thinking". ITs what the founders clearly set forth in their speeches notes and letters and what leading constitutional law scholars-St George Tucker and the justice I cited stated. Same with the USSC case of Cruikshank

why don't you tell us what you think it means and where you find support for that
Click to expand...

Based on their wishful thinking. As I said, I don't care what they wanted. I care what is logically defensible. Stop bowing down to the Church of the Founding Father and think for yourself.
 
Cephus said:
Based on their wishful thinking. As I said, I don't care what they wanted. I care what is logically defensible. Stop bowing down to the Church of the Founding Father and think for yourself.
Click to expand...

so rather than displaying your hatred of religion (which has no relevance here) what is the proper way to interpret the bill of rights>
 
TurtleDude said:
so rather than displaying your hatred of religion (which has no relevance here) what is the proper way to interpret the bill of rights>
Click to expand...

Rationally. And that wasn't a dig at religion, although it certainly deserves it, it was a poke at the obvious problem libertarians have in bowing down to and kissing the asses of the founding fathers on everything, like they're some kind of godsent messiahs from on high.
 
Cephus said:
Rationally. And that wasn't a dig at religion, although it certainly deserves it, it was a poke at the obvious problem libertarians have in bowing down to and kissing the asses of the founding fathers on everything, like they're some kind of godsent messiahs from on high.
Click to expand...

ok we are making progress-what is the rational interpretation of the second amendment
 
TurtleDude said:
ok we are making progress-what is the rational interpretation of the second amendment
Click to expand...

I'm all in favor of personal, rational firearm ownership. I voted for it in the poll, after all. I am not in favor of the kind of abject paranoia, anything-goes, no controls of any kind, the government is out to get me nonsense that I see far too often on the political right, nor the "take all the guns" childishness that we see on the left. Both sides are idiots.
 
Cephus said:
I'm all in favor of personal, rational firearm ownership. I voted for it in the poll, after all. I am not in favor of the kind of abject paranoia, anything-goes, no controls of any kind, the government is out to get me nonsense that I see far too often on the political right, nor the "take all the guns" childishness that we see on the left. Both sides are idiots.
Click to expand...

that really doesn't tell us what the second amendment does
 
TurtleDude said:
that really doesn't tell us what the second amendment does
Click to expand...

The second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to own firearms, it does not say there are to be no limits of any kind on it. Because if you go back to the original meaning, the whole first part you're so interested in ignoring, the whole point of having individual firearm ownership was so that people could bring them to the defense of the nation. Able-bodied men were part of the national militia and provided their own guns. That's not the case today.
 
Cephus said:
The second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to own firearms, it does not say there are to be no limits of any kind on it. Because if you go back to the original meaning, the whole first part you're so interested in ignoring, the whole point of having individual firearm ownership was so that people could bring them to the defense of the nation. Able-bodied men were part of the national militia and provided their own guns. That's not the case today.
Click to expand...

I read the second amendment as a blanket restriction on the federal government having any power to tell private citizens what sort of arms they can own. Its the only interpretation that makes sense when you try to fit it in with the 10th amendment and the powers specifically enumerated for the federal government

tell us where you think the second amendment's prohibitions cease to operate
 
I do not believe in the 2nd Amendment!

I believe that self defense is a natural right.

The Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights, can be amended at any time, and my natural right can be taken away at the point of a gun.
 
Last edited:
I would like a right winger to explain to me what the "well-regulated" part exists for.
 
Deuce said:
I would like a right winger to explain to me what the "well-regulated" part exists for.
Click to expand...

the militia that has been formed. it means a militia that is in good working order and up to the task
 
Deuce said:
I would like a right winger to explain to me what the "well-regulated" part exists for.
Click to expand...

At the time it meant for a militia be in proper working order or operating as expected. It was a common expression.

For example, a "well regulated clock" is a clock that keeps good time.
 
TurtleDude said:
the militia that has been formed. it means a militia that is in good working order and up to the task
Click to expand...

There is no federal-level militia today.
 
Lursa said:
And here's why it's still relevant and necessary:

The 2A is indeed about being prepared to fight govt tyranny, and personal arms need to be comparable to those of the govt. But that does not necessarily include "weapons of war" such as tanks, bombs, etc.

Here's what I've written on this in the past, this is why it's important for citizens to retain personal firearms of all sorts in the event of confronting tyranny:
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised what small arms and asymmetric warfare can accomplish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom