• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • 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!

What "well regulated" means in the 2nd Amendment

DebateChallenge said:
Found a great video which explains the 2nd Amendment and what "well regulated" means.
YouTube
Click to expand...

This guy rants like a gun nut.

But, his sense of 'well regulated' is about right, I always thought it meant "well organized and trained' militia.


all young men were members of a local militia, especially in the South, where patrols were aimed at controlling ambitious slaves.

The second amendment was given to the south by the north so that they would agree to ratify the constitution, because all citizens, being required as members of well regulated militias, needed to bear arms.
Just they way the second amendment was worded was a tip of the hat towards the south. It was a quid pro quo for ratification.

A far better treatise on this subject is the book by Thom Hartmann, "The Hidden History Of Guns and the Second Amendment".
 
OscarLevant said:
This guy rants like a gun nut.

But, his sense of 'well regulated' is about right, I always thought it meant "well organized and trained' militia.


all young men were members of a local militia, especially in the South, where patrols were aimed at controlling ambitious slaves.

The second amendment was given to the south by the north so that they would agree to ratify the constitution, because all citizens, being required as members of well regulated militias, needed to bear arms.
Just they way the second amendment was worded was a tip of the hat towards the south. It was a quid pro quo for ratification.

A far better treatise on this subject is the book by Thom Hartmann, "The Hidden History Of Guns and the Second Amendment".
Click to expand...

Thom Hartmann is a joke-he bought into the Carl Bogus bogus bull poop. Hartmann has no scholarly credentials and is a hack: he holds no academic degrees after dropping out of MSU. They tried to pretend that the second amendment was about arming slave patrols-which is beyond ludicrous because there was no doubt that the states could arm their own police forces. As eminent Constitutional Scholar Akhil Reed Amar noted, several anti slave states had second amendment provisions. Bogus was so outside the mainstream, that real legal scholars didn't address his excrement
 
Rich2018 said:
And if you can get one, so can a criminal

What then ?
Click to expand...

If I can't get one, a criminal can still get one. What then? Tough ****? **** me and my family because you want to feel better?
 
Rich2018 said:
But a criminal can get an AR-15

Would you not want a fully automatic M-16 ?
Click to expand...
You do know that MANY people legally own and operate fully automatic M16s...right?
 
VanceMack said:
You do know that MANY people legally own and operate fully automatic M16s...right?
Click to expand...

You do know that there are regulations on such arms since put in place by Reagan, right?
 
apdst said:
Because firearms ownership is a guaranteed right and the law of the land forbids infringement on that right.

The permitting process has been proven to be designed as an infringement on those rights, having nothing to do with safety.
Click to expand...

All they usually needed in the old West, was a side arm or two.
 
notquiteright said:
You are once again dodging the question- how many need to die before you think bump stocks are an issue???? A number, not a quibble, would be nice... :doh
Click to expand...

My answer is, it doesn't matter. There are literally hundreds of thousands of things that kill more people each year than bump stocks.

The simple fact is, you really aren't concerned with death numbers, you're concerned ONLY with the death numbers from someone using firearms or firearm accessories. I can show you many thousands more deaths than bump stocks to you on objects that can be "banned" but you will just dismiss them because THIS is your cause and THIS is what you care about. That's fine, I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it. But please don't think for a minute this isn't just 100% political rather than the death counts.

When we demonize objects, we lose any perspective on the real cause of the problem.
 
Why do Individuals of the People need this type of weapon?

Bump stocks or bump fire stocks are gun stocks that can be used to assist in bump firing. Bump firing is the act of using the recoil of a semi-automatic firearm to fire ammunition cartridges in rapid succession, but with a loss of accuracy.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_stock
Click to expand...
 
danielpalos said:
All they usually needed in the old West, was a side arm or two.
Click to expand...

And those were the most state of the art firearms of the period. Why did they have the most state of the art firearms of the period? Because the bad guys were totin the most state of the art firearms of the period.
 
Praxas said:
My answer is, it doesn't matter. There are literally hundreds of thousands of things that kill more people each year than bump stocks.

The simple fact is, you really aren't concerned with death numbers, you're concerned ONLY with the death numbers from someone using firearms or firearm accessories. I can show you many thousands more deaths than bump stocks to you on objects that can be "banned" but you will just dismiss them because THIS is your cause and THIS is what you care about. That's fine, I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it. But please don't think for a minute this isn't just 100% political rather than the death counts.

When we demonize objects, we lose any perspective on the real cause of the problem.
Click to expand...

If we require driver’s licenses and have traffic laws, does that mean that we demonize cars and are not focusing on the real cause of the problems in the road?
 
ataraxia said:
If we require driver’s licenses and have traffic laws, does that mean that we demonize cars and are not focusing on the real cause of the problems in the road?
Click to expand...

First of all, you are comparing apples to cars. If you can show me where automobiles are mentioned in the constitution I would be glad to answer your question. Unfortunately, it isn't. That's like saying you want a license for someone to use their first amendment rights.

And yes, if you are banning cars than you are ignoring the real cause of the problems on the road.
 
Praxas said:
My answer is, it doesn't matter. There are literally hundreds of thousands of things that kill more people each year than bump stocks. The simple fact is, you really aren't concerned with death numbers, you're concerned ONLY with the death numbers from someone using firearms or firearm accessories. I can show you many thousands more deaths than bump stocks to you on objects that can be "banned" but you will just dismiss them because THIS is your cause and THIS is what you care about. That's fine, I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it. But please don't think for a minute this isn't just 100% rather than the death counts. When we demonize objects, we lose any perspective on the real cause of the problem.
Click to expand...

That people die from everything to slipping in the shower to talcum powder doesn't mean we can't look into curbing smoking or firearm violence deaths... your response is a deflection. OTHERS attempt to dismiss the concern over bump stocks with so few die from their use (or attempt to ignore such deaths) so I asked a simple question- what is the threshold number of deaths...

Now I never called for a ban on bump stocks (The Don did that, yanno tRump, the guy who claimed no one 'defends' the 2nd A more than he does... :doh ) Banning anything isn't 'my cause', you are making that up to weave a tale of dismissal. I kept at the threshold of deaths question because two posters kept quibbling and deflecting from my question.

In case you have missed it, I own a pretty old civilian version of the AKM. (actually a civilianized RPK but so few know all the variants in the AK family) Great for feral hog hunting in the creek bottom I own. Never wanted to rock and roll it. I own a heavy barreled DPMS in 308. Again it is for long range hog hunting, target practice to 800 yards. Never wanted to rock and roll it either. I own two bolt actions, again 308's, I use far more often.

Banning isn't my thing, but the 'gun' rubbers claim any contradiction to their narrative is a call to ban something... :roll:

There are several useful actions to help curb 'gun' deaths but the rubbers don't want to discuss any of them- "slippery slope" and all that crap.

Have a nice day, later today I'm zeroing a new scope on my comp rifle, I have a 300 yards range in my front yard... life is good... :peace
 
apdst said:
And those were the most state of the art firearms of the period. Why did they have the most state of the art firearms of the period? Because the bad guys were totin the most state of the art firearms of the period.
Click to expand...

Sidearms are still "state of the art".
 
notquiteright said:
That people die from everything to slipping in the shower to talcum powder doesn't mean we can't look into curbing smoking or firearm violence deaths... your response is a deflection. OTHERS attempt to dismiss the concern over bump stocks with so few die from their use (or attempt to ignore such deaths) so I asked a simple question- what is the threshold number of deaths...

Now I never called for a ban on bump stocks (The Don did that, yanno tRump, the guy who claimed no one 'defends' the 2nd A more than he does... :doh ) Banning anything isn't 'my cause', you are making that up to weave a tale of dismissal. I kept at the threshold of deaths question because two posters kept quibbling and deflecting from my question.

In case you have missed it, I own a pretty old civilian version of the AKM. (actually a civilianized RPK but so few know all the variants in the AK family) Great for feral hog hunting in the creek bottom I own. Never wanted to rock and roll it. I own a heavy barreled DPMS in 308. Again it is for long range hog hunting, target practice to 800 yards. Never wanted to rock and roll it either. I own two bolt actions, again 308's, I use far more often.

Banning isn't my thing, but the 'gun' rubbers claim any contradiction to their narrative is a call to ban something... :roll:

There are several useful actions to help curb 'gun' deaths but the rubbers don't want to discuss any of them- "slippery slope" and all that crap.

Have a nice day, later today I'm zeroing a new scope on my comp rifle, I have a 300 yards range in my front yard... life is good... :peace
Click to expand...

I didn't say banning was your cause, I said you're concerned ONLY with the death numbers from someone using firearms or firearm accessories. I said THAT was your cause. The numbers. That's all. I'm glad that banning isn't your thing.

I think some of the idea to "curb" numbers aren't really doing the job people expect. I will say I work with the system currently in play and all my firearms are legally registered. I'm indifferent to registering firearms because it isn't any more work for me than I already have done. I can understand people's big brother concern over it though because of the banning that people are wanting to do.
 
ataraxia said:
You do know that there are regulations on such arms since put in place by Reagan, right?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the fact that they are still legal to own and not at all hard to get?
 
Praxas said:
First of all, you are comparing apples to cars. If you can show me where automobiles are mentioned in the constitution I would be glad to answer your question. Unfortunately, it isn't. That's like saying you want a license for someone to use their first amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand guns are in the constitution and not cars. However, that does not change the fact that all dangerous tools and equipment need some regulations. The fact that guns are in the constitution are a strange contingency of history which have become obsolete with the advance of modern weapons technology.

And yes, if you are banning cars than you are ignoring the real cause of the problems on the road.
Click to expand...

But I, at least, am not talking about banning all guns or all cars (very few people do. This is just a scare tactic used by the NRA). I am just saying that all potentially dangerous tools and equipment need some regulations for public safety.
 
RE full auto

VanceMack said:
What does that have to do with the fact that they are still legal to own and not at all hard to get?
Click to expand...

It’s good ‘nuff for me. See? Coming to compromises isn’t all that hard, is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom