• 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..."

Please quote the clause.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
 
Well what are mere "words set on paper" in the wind of the utterances of our "wise" rulers?

Not your wise rulers, but the Supreme Court. They are the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, not you. They have "interpreted" the 2nd amendment to mean you can't have your own personal nuclear ordnance in your garage. I know it's nuclear arms, and it says that the right to arms shall not be infringed. But limiting the ability of people to personal nukes has just been an interpretation of the court. Who knows, it may change in the future. But such interpretation don't mean the Constitution is "mere "words set on paper" in the wind of the utterances of our "wise" rulers."

As Scalia has said: like all rights, 2nd amendment rights are not unlimited. Where the lines can be drawn needs to be constantly revisited and reinterpreted, especially since new technologies are coming out all the time.
 
Last edited:
opinion noted and not shared. Citizens should have available whatever weapons the state is prepared to use against them: any firearm police use on our city streets, I ought to be able to own in my home. You just don't get the fact that the second amendment was not intended to be something nickel and dimed-its a complete ban on the federal government

I will turn this around on your statist position-Do I want the servants of the public to have any weapon the state wants to give them, but we cannot own? OF COURSE NOT

"The servants of the state" have Apache attack helicopters, missile launchers, gunships, aircraft carriers, and nuclear ordnances. You think those should be on sale at Walmart now?

In the 18th century, it was easy to have matching weapons to what the military had. Like I said, the problem is not that our values have changed. The problem is that weapons technology has changed. And it will continue to change. Our laws need to be able to keep up. This is what happens when you try to fossilize and mummify laws as "eternal" in a dynamic and ever progressing society and economy.
 
Last edited:
The President has no power over the militia unless called up.

No, that would be the power of the local state legislature. That's still government, though.
 
"The servants of the state" have Apache attack helicopters, missile launchers, gunships, aircraft carriers, and nuclear ordnances. You think those should be on sale at Walmart now?

In the 18th century, it was easy to have matching weapons to what the military had. Like I said, the problem is not that our values have changed. The problem is that weapons technology has changed. And it will continue to change. Our laws need to be able to keep up. This is what happens when you try to fossilize and mummify laws as "eternal" in a dynamic and ever progressing society and economy.

do the police have such weapons? nope, try again. The military cannot be used against private citizens internally

I will clue you in on something: its not a convincing argument to tell me times have changed and thus liberal judges should be able to change the constitution's meaning anytime they want without an amendment.
 
We already have a well regulated militia. It's called the National Guard.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
 
Not your wise rulers, but the Supreme Court. They are the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, not you.

The courts resolve individual cases at law and apply the words of the constitution and subordinate laws to cases. They do not have secret decoder rings that give them some unique ability to understand magic words mere mortals cant.



They have "interpreted" the 2nd amendment to mean you can't have your own personal nuclear ordnance in your garage.

Nonsense, the pure power of the government would strip me of any ability to threaten them long before the 3 years it would take to get the courts interested in the nuclear weapons I have in my garage, get real


I know it's nuclear arms, and it says that the right to arms shall not be infringed. But limiting the ability of people to personal nukes has just been an interpretation of the court. Who knows, it may change in the future. But such intery[sic] been pretation[sic] don't mean the Constitution is "mere "words set on paper" in the wind of the utterances of our "wise" rulers."

The courts and laws are the first things jettisoned when the power structure is threatened; this is why Hillary could not possibly be required to answer to the law"

 
Last edited:
do the police have such weapons? nope, try again. The military cannot be used against private citizens internally

Well there goes the tyranny of government argument. for the AR15.
 
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Okay, and does that training prescribed by Congress include removing their arms? I realize you're trying to pave the road with bull****, but please continue. You're one of those that seems to think that somewhere disarming people is part of the training, rules or laws governing militaries. If this were true, this conversation and all others like it would be moot. The SCOTUS would never have to rule, and none of us would have weapons in our homes. But since just the opposite has happened, your entire premise is specious. That clause gives no power to the Congress to disarm a single soul, and to make damn sure of it, 2A was added to persuade the doubters so the Constitution would be ratified.
 
do the police have such weapons? nope, try again. The military cannot be used against private citizens internally

I will clue you in on something: its not a convincing argument to tell me times have changed and thus liberal judges should be able to change the constitution's meaning anytime they want without an amendment.

just read an article the other day that some police are putting AR15's on the backs of their motorcycles.
and in their other cars.

the problem isn't the AR15 it never was.
it is the screw ball people that are allowed to get them.

If you look at all the shootings the FBI or local law enforcement were warned and tipped numerous times
and did nothing about it. Also almost all of the shooters were under the care of a medical professional that
failed to report their condition.
 
Okay, and does that training prescribed by Congress include removing their arms? I realize you're trying to pave the road with bull****, but please continue. You're one of those that seems to think that somewhere disarming people is part of the training, rules or laws governing militaries. If this were true, this conversation and all others like it would be moot. The SCOTUS would never have to rule, and none of us would have weapons in our homes. But since just the opposite has happened, your entire premise is specious. That clause gives no power to the Congress to disarm a single soul, and to make damn sure of it, 2A was added to persuade the doubters so the Constitution would be ratified.

You have me confused with someone else. I am a federalist. I believe in better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia.

Don't grab guns! Grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.
 
Okay, and does that training prescribed by Congress include removing their arms? I realize you're trying to pave the road with bull****, but please continue. You're one of those that seems to think that somewhere disarming people is part of the training, rules or laws governing militaries. If this were true, this conversation and all others like it would be moot. The SCOTUS would never have to rule, and none of us would have weapons in our homes. But since just the opposite has happened, your entire premise is specious. That clause gives no power to the Congress to disarm a single soul, and to make damn sure of it, 2A was added to persuade the doubters so the Constitution would be ratified.

I'm sorry, but where are the advocations for disarming in this discussion? I haven't seen any.
 
do the police have such weapons? nope, try again. The military cannot be used against private citizens internally

Why not? If the federal government really wants to get tyrannical on you, you think they are going to send in the police? That would be silly, considering they have such nicer toys to play with these days. When ol' King George wanted to put down the American Revolution, he sent his military troops with the finest weapons they had to put the pesky colonists down. Those redcoats were equipped with the finest weapons they had in the day: front loading muskets, pistols, and swords. Fortunately, those weapons were not too different from what the colonists had or could make in their own kitchen to counter them. With the advance in weapons technology today, though, that's going to be a little harder to do for civilians against a modern military, unless you know how to build an Apache attack helicopter in your own garage.

I will clue you in on something: its not a convincing argument to tell me times have changed and thus liberal judges should be able to change the constitution's meaning anytime they want without an amendment.

Yeah you may be right. That's just why I agree with judge Stevens when he says the 2nd A has just got to go. It is hopelessly obsolete and becoming ever more dysfunctional. And you think things are bad now? Wait another 20-30 as weapons continue to become even more deadly and sophisticated. There is no way this is sustainable. Even you will have to cry uncle at some point. Such weapons have no place in modern civil society.
 
When was the last time someone got drafted?

See vietnam it wasn't that long ago and every 18 year old still has to register for the draft.
 
See vietnam it wasn't that long ago and every 18 year old still has to register for the draft.

Both the draft and registration were abolished January 27, 1973. In 1980, Jimmy Carter reinstated registration, however, Congressional Approval is required to reinstate the draft. Carter's rationalization was that we needed the ability to call up all registrants for national emergencies, not merely military duty. The registration process is not the same as it was before it was canceled. It is now inclusive of all male inhabitants of the United States, including undocumented aliens. Failure to register within 30 days of an 18th birthday is subject to 5 years in prison and a $250k fine. It is not called a Military Registration and Conscription System, but a Selective Service Registration. The prior system allowed for registration at 17, within 6 months of the 18th birthday, the age at which a man could enlist without parental approval. Males in prison or facilities for housing the insane, mental or physical incapacitation were exempt from registration (not to be confused with exemptions from the draft). There no local draft boards, only single central headquarters. No allowances for draft center physicals. No categorizations based on physical anomalies and no exemptions based on occupation or continuing education, or being a parent. So understand if you are blind police officer with 6 kids attending college at night, you are getting called up if and when the time comes.

"Still" is the wrong word because of the disruption and changes. I'm not sure what the right word might be. Don't argue with me about it, take it up with Jimmy Carter. :)
 
Why not? If the federal government really wants to get tyrannical on you, you think they are going to send in the police? That would be silly, considering they have such nicer toys to play with these days. When ol' King George wanted to put down the American Revolution, he sent his military troops with the finest weapons they had to put the pesky colonists down. Those redcoats were equipped with the finest weapons they had in the day: front loading muskets, pistols, and swords. Fortunately, those weapons were not too different from what the colonists had or could make in their own kitchen to counter them. With the advance in weapons technology today, though, that's going to be a little harder to do for civilians against a modern military, unless you know how to build an Apache attack helicopter in your own garage.



Yeah you may be right. That's just why I agree with judge Stevens when he says the 2nd A has just got to go. It is hopelessly obsolete and becoming ever more dysfunctional. And you think things are bad now? Wait another 20-30 as weapons continue to become even more deadly and sophisticated. There is no way this is sustainable. Even you will have to cry uncle at some point. Such weapons have no place in modern civil society.

Judge Steves is a senile statist. You will need weapons to get rid of weapons because most of us who own them aren't going to just hand them over because some socialist's sense of propriety is upset about us owning them
 
You have me confused with someone else. I am a federalist. I believe in better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia.

Don't grab guns! Grab gun lovers and regulate them well. We have a Second Amendment and should have, no security problems.

Aqueducts? The Roman empire called, they want their infrastructure back.
 
Both the draft and registration were abolished January 27, 1973. In 1980, Jimmy Carter reinstated registration, however, Congressional Approval is required to reinstate the draft. Carter's rationalization was that we needed the ability to call up all registrants for national emergencies, not merely military duty. The registration process is not the same as it was before it was canceled. It is now inclusive of all male inhabitants of the United States, including undocumented aliens. Failure to register within 30 days of an 18th birthday is subject to 5 years in prison and a $250k fine. It is not called a Military Registration and Conscription System, but a Selective Service Registration. The prior system allowed for registration at 17, within 6 months of the 18th birthday, the age at which a man could enlist without parental approval. Males in prison or facilities for housing the insane, mental or physical incapacitation were exempt from registration (not to be confused with exemptions from the draft). There no local draft boards, only single central headquarters. No allowances for draft center physicals. No categorizations based on physical anomalies and no exemptions based on occupation or continuing education, or being a parent. So understand if you are blind police officer with 6 kids attending college at night, you are getting called up if and when the time comes.

"Still" is the wrong word because of the disruption and changes. I'm not sure what the right word might be. Don't argue with me about it, take it up with Jimmy Carter. :)

The fact remain that all 18 year old must register as part of the militia.
Whether congress must call for a draft or not it is irrelevant.

The 2nd amendment is pretty clear.
The right of the people is the defining clause.
 
Until they do a much needed upgrade the Urban Assault Vehicle, I can't go along with the "well organized" part.

Stripes.jpg
 
See vietnam it wasn't that long ago and every 18 year old still has to register for the draft.
The draft ended in 1973 - 45 years ago. Most of the draftees of Viet Nam are collecting Social Security Now.
 
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?

Well trained and in good working order.

Our militia is a mess
 
Back
Top Bottom