• 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!

Vote Likely This Week on Constitutional Carry!

RetiredUSN said:
The 2nd was beautifully written to protect us from the nutter anti gun types, and the wannabe constitutional scholars like yourself. :lamo

One cannot expect to form any sort of viable militia if people are not allowed to own and bear arms in the first place.

Your ignorance is excused.
Click to expand...

Yeah right. I'm ignorant.

Also the Founding Fathers seem to have been ignorant of it all too. Especially Mr Gerry (of gerrymandering fame) and Mr Jackson.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This document is about what happened in the House (you know, part of the US government) in 1789.

They discussed this clause of the future second amendment "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Right, so this could mean the right of individuals to be in the militia, or it could mean to carry guns around.

So you think Mr Gerry was afraid that they're have a clause that A) prevented religious scrupulous people being FORCED to carry guns around, B) That taking away the right to carry arms around would be able to destroy the Constitution by destroying the militia.

I think Mr Gerry was afraid that they'd have a clause that A) would prevent religious scrupulous people from being in the militia, B) this could then be used to prevent other people from being in the militia and this would then destroy the militia.

Which do you think is more logical?

Oh, and Mr Gerry's next words were "What, sir, is the use of a militia?" whereas you would probably think his next words were "What, sir, is the use of carrying arms around?" But he didn't say this.

Oh, he also said: "Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins"

So, which is more likely? That they're worried about the right to be in the militia, or the right to carry arms around which has nothing to do with the militia? The hint is the fact that he mentioned the militia.

Oh, he also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, he used "bear arms" and "militia duty" synonymously.

"Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Mr Jackson, according to you, thought that if individuals didn't carry a weapon around with them AT ALL TIMES, then they could pay an equivalent.
Mr Jackson, according to me, thought that if you didn't partake in militia duty, then you could pay an equivalent.

Which seems most likely?

Oh, and "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent." He used "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously.


Yes, I'm ignorant, and you posted NOTHING. Absolutely feck all to back up your argument. I'm wondering whether a unbiased bystander would agree with your nothingness, or my historical document from the founding fathers. Oh, and I have more, but we'll go with this for now and wait for your attempt at pulling a document out of your ass.
 
Wayne Jr said:
And if you dare support a policy that reflects actual militia discipline, like mandatory training or safe storage, the retards come out of the woodwork to accuse you of being 'anti-gun' :D
Click to expand...

Perhaps. These things aren't really a part of the argument of the meaning of the 2A, more the militia acts.

Though militia discipline was one reason to make the National Guard. Now, if every individual has a right to be in the militia, discipline will be poor. So they made the "unorganized militia", stuffed every man in it (because women don't seem to care so much, apparently, about guns), and then did nothing with it. So everyone was actually exercising their right to be in the militia and none of them were doing it in the National Guard (regardless of whether they're in it or not).
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Perhaps. These things aren't really a part of the argument of the meaning of the 2A, more the militia acts.

Though militia discipline was one reason to make the National Guard. Now, if every individual has a right to be in the militia, discipline will be poor. So they made the "unorganized militia", stuffed every man in it (because women don't seem to care so much, apparently, about guns), and then did nothing with it. So everyone was actually exercising their right to be in the militia and none of them were doing it in the National Guard (regardless of whether they're in it or not).
Click to expand...
That law is nothing but a legal tool to authorize the draft. Without it, Congress has no authority to force conscription. The draft would be slavery. But with it, Congress is just calling up the militia.
 
Wayne Jr said:
That law is nothing but a legal tool to authorize the draft. Without it, Congress has no authority to force conscription. The draft would be slavery. But with it, Congress is just calling up the militia.
Click to expand...

It's actually not.

When has the Dick Act ever been used to draft people? The fact is the Dick Act is an act of Congress. The same as the Selective Training and Service Act 1940.

There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents the draft, all that's required is the govt makes a law. It also doesn't require them to put people in the militia. As far as I know WW2 people weren't in militias. They were in the US Federal Armed Forces.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Yeah right. I'm ignorant.

Also the Founding Fathers seem to have been ignorant of it all too. Especially Mr Gerry (of gerrymandering fame) and Mr Jackson.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

This document is about what happened in the House (you know, part of the US government) in 1789.

They discussed this clause of the future second amendment "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Right, so this could mean the right of individuals to be in the militia, or it could mean to carry guns around.

So you think Mr Gerry was afraid that they're have a clause that A) prevented religious scrupulous people being FORCED to carry guns around, B) That taking away the right to carry arms around would be able to destroy the Constitution by destroying the militia.

I think Mr Gerry was afraid that they'd have a clause that A) would prevent religious scrupulous people from being in the militia, B) this could then be used to prevent other people from being in the militia and this would then destroy the militia.

Which do you think is more logical?

Oh, and Mr Gerry's next words were "What, sir, is the use of a militia?" whereas you would probably think his next words were "What, sir, is the use of carrying arms around?" But he didn't say this.

Oh, he also said: "Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins"

So, which is more likely? That they're worried about the right to be in the militia, or the right to carry arms around which has nothing to do with the militia? The hint is the fact that he mentioned the militia.

Oh, he also said "Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head."

Yeah, he used "bear arms" and "militia duty" synonymously.

"Mr. Jackson did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law.""

Mr Jackson, according to you, thought that if individuals didn't carry a weapon around with them AT ALL TIMES, then they could pay an equivalent.
Mr Jackson, according to me, thought that if you didn't partake in militia duty, then you could pay an equivalent.

Which seems most likely?

Oh, and "Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent." He used "bear arms" and "render military service" synonymously.


Yes, I'm ignorant, and you posted NOTHING. Absolutely feck all to back up your argument. I'm wondering whether a unbiased bystander would agree with your nothingness, or my historical document from the founding fathers. Oh, and I have more, but we'll go with this for now and wait for your attempt at pulling a document out of your ass.
Click to expand...

You are still ignorant, and obnoxious.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Bye!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I'm seeing a trend, that the longer someone has been around, the less interested they are in discussing anything.

Which makes one wonder why they're still here at all lol
 
Wayne Jr said:
I'm seeing a trend, that the longer someone has been around, the less interested they are in discussing anything.

Which makes one wonder why they're still here at all lol
Click to expand...

I literally see people who are trying to relive their high school years. Or perhaps are still in high school. I don't know or care.
 
Wayne Jr said:
I'm seeing a trend, that the longer someone has been around, the less interested they are in discussing anything.

Which makes one wonder why they're still here at all lol
Click to expand...

The more someone has seen the same discredited argument-restated by another wave of new posters-who act as if it is something new-perhaps they get a bit less tolerant of dealing with the same nonsense over and over and over again.
 
TurtleDude said:
The more someone has seen the same discredited argument-restated by another wave of new posters-who act as if it is something new-perhaps they get a bit less tolerant of dealing with the same nonsense over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
After some number of repititions, you should have an assortment of well-thought-out counter-arguments, probably saved on your computer, with working links to relevant sources. Time should refine your arguments, not make you intolerant. Your profile says you've been on this forum for 14 years, but you act like it's your first day, brow-beating and talking down to people instead of educating them. You've been doing it wrong for 14 years.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Open carry needs to be legal so that you don't go to jail if you reach for something in the grocery store and your shirt rides up.
Click to expand...

Okay.. right there you prove that you don't know much when it comes to guns.
 
jaeger19 said:
Okay.. right there you prove that you don't know much when it comes to guns.
Click to expand...
Right there you prove YOU don't know much about guns.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Right there you prove YOU don't know much about guns.
Click to expand...

That silly retort is worthless. And Jaeger has proven to most of us pro gun advocates , that he knows plenty.
 
TurtleDude said:
That silly retort is worthless. And Jaeger has proven to most of us pro gun advocates , that he knows plenty.
Click to expand...

Then he should know the history of open carry in states like Texas and how some people once faced charged for brandishing when their gun was accidentally exposed, due to how paranoid Texas was about open carry at the time. We still have 5 states that generally prohibit open carry, so calling me uninformed on the topic only makes you look foolish.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
Then he should know the history of open carry in states like Texas and how some people once faced charged for brandishing when their gun was accidentally exposed, due to how paranoid Texas was about open carry at the time. We still have 5 states that generally prohibit open carry, so calling me uninformed on the topic only makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...

saying 500 dollars is not a hardship-a fee that would be required every year-is the really foolish comment.
 
TurtleDude said:
saying 500 dollars is not a hardship-a fee that would be required every year-is the really foolish comment.
Click to expand...
That's an opinion, and this thread isn't about insurance anyway.
 
vegas giants said:
Ok....what you like me to teach you today. Lol
Click to expand...

Explain why if guns are the issue in suicide..

Why japan has a higher suicide rate.. but lower gun ownership than the US..

(this is going to be fun)
 
jaeger19 said:
Explain why if guns are the issue in suicide..

Why japan has a higher suicide rate.. but lower gun ownership than the US..

(this is going to be fun)
Click to expand...

Yes guns are an issue in suicide. They facilitate the bullet going thru the brain. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom