• 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!

2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

jet57 said:
None of that negates the intent of the second amendment" an armed populace for the militia which was required service for all able bodied men.

What you're citing came hundreds of years later.
Click to expand...

And how do you ensure all those to be called up will be ready to fight? You allow them to be armed as the best deterrent to invasion from without and tyranny from within, AS WAS INTENDED. Which is what all of those quotes refer to.
 
jet57 said:
None of that negates the intent of the second amendment" an armed populace for the militia which was required service for all able bodied men.
Click to expand...
- splendid -

BUT !!

Let's consider the Switzerland model.

There civilians are issued ostensibly up-to-date military small arms (though I do not know the details).

BUT !!

Do these thus supplied Swiss "pack government heat" in their daily lives?

When they shuffle off to the cheese store (Swiss cheese!!) are they carrying a Sig P239?

Or are those arms reserved only for when hordes of military invaders flood across their borders?

Back to the U.S.A.:

Was the original INTENT of 2A purely about national defense?

Or was it also about routine carry in public (concealed or not)?
 
sear said:
- splendid -

BUT !!

Let's consider the Switzerland model.

There civilians are issued ostensibly up-to-date military small arms (though I do not know the details).

BUT !!

Do these thus supplied Swiss "pack government heat" in their daily lives?

When they shuffle off to the cheese store (Swiss cheese!!) are they carrying a Sig P239?

Or are those arms reserved only for when hordes of military invaders flood across their borders?

Back to the U.S.A.:

Was the original INTENT of 2A purely about national defense?

Or was it also about routine carry in public (concealed or not)?
Click to expand...

If you read the various opinions of the time: sport, hunting and self defense were as considered as important. As individuals, what they did with the guns so long as they didn't harm another (except in defense) was not in consideration.
 
sear said:
- splendid -

BUT !!

Let's consider the Switzerland model.

There civilians are issued ostensibly up-to-date military small arms (though I do not know the details).

BUT !!

Do these thus supplied Swiss "pack government heat" in their daily lives?

When they shuffle off to the cheese store (Swiss cheese!!) are they carrying a Sig P239?

Or are those arms reserved only for when hordes of military invaders flood across their borders?

Back to the U.S.A.:

Was the original INTENT of 2A purely about national defense?

Or was it also about routine carry in public (concealed or not)?
Click to expand...


Probably not, I mean why do that? Our National Guard is the very same thing and members are issued arms; do they pack them around in everyday life? Why would they?

Secondly "A well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free state" tells you everything you need to know and answers your question. Arms on the frontier were encouraged due to the needs of hunting and Indian attack. Arms in the cites were a different sort of thing which is why the US had early gun control laws the same way that the Western era Dodge City Kansas and Tombstone Ar had ordinances against carrying guns in town.

What you are referring to as routine carry, are instances that have come about due to law suits against regulatory actions: Heller is an excellent example and a decision that I agree with - The Heller case was about Washington D.C's law that outlawed pistols in the home; trying to bring down gun violence. But THAT law did indeed infringe on the right to keep and bear. What the gun nut crowd of course - intentionally - fails to include in their hallowing of the Heller decision is that in his majority opinion, Justice Scalia said that the second amendment was not an unlimited right, and he backed up that ruling in many interviews thereafter.

Bering arms in colonial times and bearing arms today have two completely different connotations to them but the concept is abused by industry shills; who haunt these pages and by far right leaning politicians who bastardize the second amendment by emotionalizing a boogieman like threat your rights that only plays on the ignorant.

So convoluting the whole thing under one patriotic umbrella is insulting to those who know better and patronizing the uninformed.
 
"do they pack them around in everyday life? Why would they?" j5
Click to expand...
Why would anybody?

"Why" may not be known.

BUT !!

We know as a certitude that they (our countrymen) do, by the millions.
"Secondly "A well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free state" tells you everything you need to know and answers your question." j5
Click to expand...
- piffle -

Even court ruling hasn't shut down this debate.
"So convoluting the whole thing under one patriotic umbrella is insulting to those who know better and patronizing the uninformed."
Click to expand...
And yet the NRA / ILA is as adamant as ever.
 
OpportunityCost said:
And how do you ensure all those to be called up will be ready to fight? You allow them to be armed as the best deterrent to invasion from without and tyranny from within, AS WAS INTENDED. Which is what all of those quotes refer to.
Click to expand...

The same way we did when we instituted the draft.

American history and contemporary reality show your fantasy worlds to be just uninformed gibberish dude. when you come on and begin spouting what is wholly inaccurate about the second amendment and its place in American and contemporary history, I'm gong to call you on it and once again show how out of touch you are.

Once again; I will invite you to spend some time with books on the subject of American history, its fight and inspirations and true reasons for becoming American history instead of hanging your hat on political wishful thinking and poppycock.
 
jet57 said:
The same way we did when we instituted the draft.

American history and contemporary reality show your fantasy worlds to be just uninformed gibberish dude. when you come on and begin spouting what is wholly inaccurate about the second amendment and its place in American and contemporary history, I'm gong to call you on it and once again show how out of touch you are.

Once again; I will invite you to spend some time with books on the subject of American history, its fight and inspirations and true reasons for becoming American history instead of hanging your hat on political wishful thinking and poppycock.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's why you haven't posted anything that supports your argument.
 
jet57 said:
Probably not, I mean why do that? Our National Guard is the very same thing and members are issued arms; do they pack them around in everyday life? Why would they?

Secondly "A well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free state" tells you everything you need to know and answers your question. Arms on the frontier were encouraged due to the needs of hunting and Indian attack. Arms in the cites were a different sort of thing which is why the US had early gun control laws the same way that the Western era Dodge City Kansas and Tombstone Ar had ordinances against carrying guns in town.

What you are referring to as routine carry, are instances that have come about due to law suits against regulatory actions: Heller is an excellent example and a decision that I agree with - The Heller case was about Washington D.C's law that outlawed pistols in the home; trying to bring down gun violence. But THAT law did indeed infringe on the right to keep and bear. What the gun nut crowd of course - intentionally - fails to include in their hallowing of the Heller decision is that in his majority opinion, Justice Scalia said that the second amendment was not an unlimited right, and he backed up that ruling in many interviews thereafter.

Bering arms in colonial times and bearing arms today have two completely different connotations to them but the concept is abused by industry shills; who haunt these pages and by far right leaning politicians who bastardize the second amendment by emotionalizing a boogieman like threat your rights that only plays on the ignorant.

So convoluting the whole thing under one patriotic umbrella is insulting to those who know better and patronizing the uninformed.
Click to expand...

Jet, you need to quit giving false information. I know you are doing so because you keep referring back to the same quote by Scalia and refuse to put it into context. Its almost laughable you would try to pawn off the same misinformation twice.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

III

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
Click to expand...

This was the court signaling that they would not be striking down place restrictions such as courthouses. Nor would they be striking down Concealed Carry restrictions in various states.

You distort this into saying it offers more limitations on the 2nd when all it does is signal the court is not overturning existing prohibitions in certain areas.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Jet, you need to quit giving false information. I know you are doing so because you keep referring back to the same quote by Scalia and refuse to put it into context. Its almost laughable you would try to pawn off the same misinformation twice.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html



This was the court signaling that they would not be striking down place restrictions such as courthouses. Nor would they be striking down Concealed Carry restrictions in various states.

You distort this into saying it offers more limitations on the 2nd when all it does is signal the court is not overturning existing prohibitions in certain areas.
Click to expand...

What false information: name it. Be specific.
 
radcen said:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The term "well regulated militia" in the 1770's refered to all white men between the ages of 15 to 50.

Modern translation would be: all adults.
 
Last edited:
OpportunityCost said:
Yep, nothing, unless by nothing you mean utter defeat for your argument.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html


Care to TRY to support your argument with something more than your opinion?
Click to expand...

his entire schtick is that the politicians who rule his world have deemed him and those like him, untrustworthy to own the same guns that most citizens of the USA can own. They don't trust him to have an 11 round magazine either. Rather than fight against such idiocy, he has adopted their specious laws and tries to make the rest of the country subject to the same nonsense he lives under
 
TurtleDude said:
LOL, review the stockholm syndrome and read Aesop's fable about the fox that lost its tail
Click to expand...

What did I predict?

OpportunityCost said:
We have gone around this particular block many times. Pretending I need to go and find quotes, writings and various state laws on which certain principles were based is a zero sum game with you, you will ignore whatever you chose.

You cannot be relied upon to be an honest actor in this type of debate.
Click to expand...
 
OpportunityCost said:
What did I predict?
Click to expand...

when one tries to argue in favor of a fraudulent facade that they have erected to serve as a pretext for their real reason or motivation, you are going to get specious reasoning and bogus arguments
 
TurtleDude said:
when one tries to argue in favor of a fraudulent facade that they have erected to serve as a pretext for their real reason or motivation, you are going to get specious reasoning and bogus arguments
Click to expand...

As yet, he has presented no debate.
 
radcen said:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

My view is that the purpose of the second amendment is to help protect the people from an authoritarian government. That would make the militia everyone other than the government. Fortunately, the government despite efforts, has not yet become authoritarian. If it does you may be glad the militia is armed.
 
"My view is that the purpose of the second amendment is to help protect the people from an authoritarian government." fw #496
Click to expand...
100% possible.
"That would make the militia everyone other than the government." fw
Click to expand...
a) Why do you think government employment would exempt the employed citizen from civic responsibility?

b) It might make the potential militia pool most able-bodied adults. But I don't know that it would necessarily bind "everyone" (your word) to an oath of loyalty, of military or paramilitary servitude without formal oath-taking.
 
radcen said:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I also, have heard quite often the argument that "militia" refers to the National Guard and Military Reserves; yet neither the timeline or definitions under the Federal Codes support these statements.

Consider the following:

The Second Amendment was ratified and adopted in 1791.
The "Miltia", or National Guard was not formed until 1903.....over a century later.
The Reserves were not formed until 1908; again, over a century later.

So, we have individuals arguing that the right to bear arms was exclusive to organizations that would not exist for at least another hundred years when the Second Amendment was added.

Now, to be fair, there was ONE state guard that did exist shortly afterwards...the New York State Guard was formed in 1824...still another 30 years after the Second Amendment was adopted.

So...how does the Government define "Militia"?

Lets look at the United States Codes...

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Read the bolded closely......the militia, in this case the Unorganized militia, is clearly identified as individuals who are NOT members of the Government Militia.

Which takes us back to the intent of the writers of the constitution and the Amendment in question.....The Citizens.....every able bodied citizen 17-45 capable of bearing arms. You and I.
 
radcen said:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?
Click to expand...

Well regulated: With training and capable of holding a line.
Militia: Infantry

Thus, the arms (firearms, perhaps more) of the infantry shall not be infringed upon. They are weapons of self defense. Other weapons (armadas, etc) are weapons of national defense and thereby the realm of the state as its first responsibility.

In this way, the founders set a context that would transcend time: arms of the infantry. Someday that will be a ray gun or zappers or vaporizers, but weapons of self defense are the only realization of the socially natural right to self defense.

Militias, state sanctioned, can have more than infantry arms. They are not, of course, limited as per individuals.

Does infantry arms include a 50 cal? I think so. Kinda ordnance, as it's indirect. And it's crew served. So I can see some grey area there. Rifles and pistols are not in question.
 
radcen said:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Look at the word "regulated" and "Militia" in the oldest dictionary you can find. At least to the mid 18th century, as word meanings change over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom