• 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..."

ataraxia said:
So just to be clear: you don't think we should be arresting drunk drivers either? At least not until they have killed a few?
Click to expand...

You do realize that:

1: Driving is a privilege, not a Right.

2: Driving drunk doesn't have to kill someone in order for it to cause harm.

Since driving is a privilege I have no problems with drunk driving laws. Rights however require a far more stringent set of circumstances before you can legally and morally restrict them.
 
It means that anybody that owns a gun is a part of the militia... but that is not what gun owners would have you believe.
 
Fishking said:
Yeah...that's not a gun show loophole. There is no gun show loophole. There is the ability for a private citizen to sell their private weapons to another party without certain regulations applying because they are not doing it as a business and it's their property. Everyone who is an actual gun dealer has to follow all regulations, even if they are at a gun show.
Click to expand...

Call it what you will. A schizophrenic right now can buy the weapon of his choice. That's a loophole to me. You can call it whatever you want. Whatever it is, it needs to stop.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You do realize that:

1: Driving is a privilege, not a Right.

2: Driving drunk doesn't have to kill someone in order for it to cause harm.

Since driving is a privilege I have no problems with drunk driving laws. Rights however require a far more stringent set of circumstances before you can legally and morally restrict them.
Click to expand...

So why have the background checks at the gunshows? It shouldn't make a difference if a crazy person gets their gun. Let's let them be free to exercise their Constitutional rights, and then we can always arrest them once they have done something illegal, right?

I don't understand why should it make a difference whether they get it privately or through the gun shows?
 
ataraxia said:
Call it what you will. A schizophrenic right now can buy the weapon of his choice. That's a loophole to me. You can call it whatever you want. Whatever it is, it needs to stop.
Click to expand...

How is that a loophole? It's specifically designed that way. Even the very broad interpretation of the commerce clause can't reach into private transactions of a non-business setting. You know what I can also do? Sell my TV without following all kinds of regulations that Best Buy does. Is that a loophole?
 
ataraxia said:
So why have the background checks at the gunshows? It shouldn't make a difference if a crazy person gets their gun. Let's let them be free to exercise their Constitutional rights, and then we can always arrest them once they have done something illegal, right?

I don't understand why should it make a difference whether they get it privately or through the gun shows?
Click to expand...

Actually yes as they have not been proven to be effective in stopping or even significantly reducing crime.

My approach to reducing crime doesn't involve any stripping of peoples Rights yet can be far more effective. I've explained it several times around the forum so I'm not going to keep repeating it. If you wish feel free to search my posts on the subject. I will tell you that it involves economics, education, better mental health laws and an almost complete reform of our system of justice.
 
Fishking said:
How is that a loophole? It's specifically designed that way. Even the very broad interpretation of the commerce clause can't reach into private transactions of a non-business setting. You know what I can also do? Sell my TV without following all kinds of regulations that Best Buy does. Is that a loophole?
Click to expand...

I can't sell alcohol to a minor. Is that government reaching into private transactions?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually yes as they have not been proven to be effective in stopping or even significantly reducing crime.

My approach to reducing crime doesn't involve any stripping of peoples Rights yet can be far more effective. I've explained it several times around the forum so I'm not going to keep repeating it. If you wish feel free to search my posts on the subject. I will tell you that it involves economics, education, better mental health laws and an almost complete reform of our system of justice.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how any degree of education, economics, reform or our system of justice, etc... are going to stop a schizophrenic whose voices in his head are telling him to buy a gun, go to the nearest shopping mall, and exterminate everyone there.
 
ataraxia said:
I am not sure how any degree of education, economics, reform or our system of justice, etc... are going to stop a schizophrenic whose voices in his head are telling him to buy a gun, go to the nearest shopping mall, and exterminate everyone there.
Click to expand...

No law or regulation will ever completely stop crime. No matter how stringent that law or regulation is. There will always be someone that slips through the cracks or are so determined to commit a crime that they do so. You ban guns then they'll just switch to knives. You ban knives they'll just switch to crossbows. You ban cross bows and they'll use a club....which is an impossibility to ban since ANYTHING can be used as a club. Hell, even a toothpick can kill someone if used right. (and this same argument can be used for any type of crime.)

Because of this you need to stop thinking about inanimate objects and start thinking about the causes of crime. You need to think about how to identify and contain those that are hazards to themselves and those around them.......and FIX them. This can be done through education, economics, better mental health laws, and reform of our justice system from one of punishment, to one of rehabilitation. Doing all this may not stop crime from happening. But they will certainly drastically reduce crime if done correctly.

Think about it. If one is educated to a high degree they are more than likely going to be able to succeed in life far better than one that has no education. As such they are far less likely to commit a crime than the person that has barely any education. Partly because they know that if they **** up they're going to lose everything and people with something to lose is far less likely to commit a crime. A person with far less education doesn't have near as much to lose and as such will take a chance at breaking the law in order to get where they think they should be in life.

That is just ONE instance where education will work to reduce crime. There are others for education. And just as many for the other things that I mentioned. It's not a short term plan. It's a long term plan that will take time and resources and dedication before it will bear fruit.

Remember, the goal is to reduce crime period. Not just certain types of crime that happen to use an inanimate object.
 
A nuke is an inanimate object. Toothpicks, nukes,... heck, they are all inanimate objects which can be used to kill if used right, right? So why not just put nukes on a 2-for-1 sale at WalMart too? After all, nukes don't kill people. People kill people.
 
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...

It's an explanatory or prefatory phrase. The second would stand as well if it wasn't there.

The founders attempted to explain the reason, something they did nowhere else. Instead they muddled it up.
 
ataraxia said:
I can't sell alcohol to a minor. Is that government reaching into private transactions?
Click to expand...

No one can sign alcohol to a minor. You can't even give alcohol to a minor. Nice try.
 
ataraxia said:
A nuke is an inanimate object. Toothpicks, nukes,... heck, they are all inanimate objects which can be used to kill if used right, right? So why not just put nukes on a 2-for-1 sale at WalMart too? After all, nukes don't kill people. People kill people.
Click to expand...



I'm done. It's obvious that no amount of reasoning will convince you to give up your gun control agenda.
 
WCH said:
"We the People" are the government. The Militia is us.
Click to expand...

How can We The People be the same thing as the government when We The People created the government? Did We The People create themselves?
 
Fishking said:
No one can sign alcohol to a minor. You can't even give alcohol to a minor. Nice try.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that depend upon which country 'you' live in? In much of Europe it is part of the culture that youngsters learn to drink wine with meals under the supervision of their parents. I'm pretty sure those governments do not forbid the practice that is an important part of their culture. Do you think otherwise?

It's only here in the Land Of The Free and Home of The Brave that the state has criminalized such practices. I guess we can thank our Judeo Christian Heritage for that, eh?
 
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 thoughts are that the comma between "arms" and "shall" really screws up that sentence.

If the original intent of that sentence was that the verb shall applied to the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," there should not be a comma after the noun arms.

If we use proper English to define that sentence, it really reads: A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

But, I doubt that was the original intent. I suspect the intent was "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." But, it certainly is not written that way.

Hence lawyers have lots of wiggle room.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
My thoughts are that the comma between "arms" and "shall" really screws up that sentence.

If the original intent of that sentence was that the verb shall applied to the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," there should not be a comma after the noun arms.

If we use proper English to define that sentence, it really reads: A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

But, I doubt that was the original intent. I suspect the intent was "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." But, it certainly is not written that way.

Hence lawyers have lots of wiggle room.
Click to expand...

I've always thought that the dependent clause at the beginning was just a sort of grand philosophical statement, commanding nothing by itself, and prohibiting nothing.
 
calamity said:
My thoughts are that the comma between "arms" and "shall" really screws up that sentence.

If the original intent of that sentence was that the verb shall applied to the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," there should not be a comma after the noun arms.

If we use proper English to define that sentence, it really reads: A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.

But, I doubt that was the original intent. I suspect the intent was "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." But, it certainly is not written that way.

Hence lawyers have lots of wiggle room.
Click to expand...

And you're an expert on proper English of the late 18th century?
 
Thoreau72 said:
I've always thought that the dependent clause at the beginning was just a sort of grand philosophical statement, commanding nothing by itself, and prohibiting nothing.
Click to expand...

That would be true if not for the comma between arms and shall. Think about it. The comma makes the sentence almost nonsensical. See example below.

A well stocked refrigerator, essential to having a good weekend off work, the right for stores to remain open late on Friday nights, shall not be infringed.

There are only two ways that sentence can be interpreted.

One: with the comma, the sentence can be reduced to this

A well stocked refrigerator shall not be infringed.

But, that says nothing about rights and does not even really make sense.

Two: Ignoring the comma, the sentence reduces to this.

The right for stores to remain open late on Friday nights shall not be infringed.

But, then one has to ask---why the hell did they put that damned comma between the noun and the verb?
 
American said:
And you're an expert on proper English of the late 18th century?
Click to expand...

You, don't put a comma between the subject and the verb.

See how that ****ed up the sentence's meaning?

It reads like I am ordering you not to put commas between nouns and verbs instead of just informing you that commas are not put between the subject and the verb.
 
calamity said:
You, don't put a comma between the subject and the verb.

See how that ****ed up the sentence's meaning?

It reads like I am ordering you not to put commas between nouns and verbs instead of just informing you that commas are not put between the subject and the verb.
Click to expand...
If I had to trust James Madison or you, it'd definitely be Madison. :lol:
 
A well regulated Militia, in the 18th Century would translate into the National Guard today --- IMHO

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom