• 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!

First amendmant VS the second

ecofarm said:
1. It's an individual right.
2. Militia, in this case, is a class of weapon. So, basically, infantry arms.
Click to expand...

Militia and infantry are not the same thing. A militia is a group of citizens that ideally have some training. Infantry refers to professional soldiers. Wouldn't those be separate classes of weapons?
 
jet57 said:
Show me where the highest court in the land specifically said this
Click to expand...

The court ruled we the people have the right to bear arms, they didn't rule anything out, they didn't say "just for hunting" it is all inclusive.
 
lefty louie said:
The court ruled we the people have the right to bear arms, they didn't rule anything out, they didn't say "just for hunting" it is all inclusive.
Click to expand...

So this
it was meant to protect liberty via the common man.
Click to expand...
is just hyperbolic BS.
 
MrPeanut said:
Militia and infantry are not the same thing. A militia is a group of citizens that ideally have some training. Infantry refers to professional soldiers. Wouldn't those be separate classes of weapons?
Click to expand...
Militia are part-time soldiers who also have jobs in civilian lives. There is more to it than that, but it's a good basic definition.

Infantry are foot soldiers, as opposed to cavalry (mounted) and artillery (cannon).

Militiamen who are foot soldiers have the right to have weapons that are appropriate for foot soldiers. This includes machine guns (real ones, not bump stocks), grenades and grenade launchers, anti-tank bazookas, and Stinger missiles.

Another key aspect of militias is that they take their weapons home with them instead of leaving them under government control.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Militia are part-time soldiers who also have jobs in civilian lives. There is more to it than that, but it's a good basic definition.

Infantry are foot soldiers, as opposed to cavalry (mounted) and artillery (cannon).

Militiamen who are foot soldiers have the right to have weapons that are appropriate for foot soldiers. This includes machine guns (real ones, not bump stocks), grenades and grenade launchers, anti-tank bazookas, and Stinger missiles.

Another key aspect of militias is that they take their weapons home with them instead of leaving them under government control.
Click to expand...
Right, but I thought the common argument was that all able bodied citizens between 17 to 45 are considered part of the militia? If that's the case I would think describing that entire subset of people as part-time soldiers is pretty wild. I'm speaking about a militia in present day terms. It gets more confusing to me because we also have distinct groups that claim to be militias like the Oath Keepers. I realize a lot of them are vets, but I'd think it would be impossible to join if you are currently in the military. So is a militia, by today's standards, still really comparable to the military?
 
MrPeanut said:
Right, but I thought the common argument was that all able bodied citizens between 17 to 45 are considered part of the militia? If that's the case I would think describing that entire subset of people as part-time soldiers is pretty wild. I'm speaking about a militia in present day terms.
Click to expand...
The militiamen who would have standing to press a claim for heavy weapons like Stinger missiles would have to be organized by state governments into an actual fighting force according to the rules that the Constitution lays out for the militia.


MrPeanut said:
It gets more confusing to me because we also have distinct groups that claim to be militias like the Oath Keepers.
Click to expand...
The militia movement was the result of a misguided effort by the gun banners to claim that people only had gun rights if they were part of an organized militia.

Some people responded by saying "All right, we'll organize ourselves into a militia then."


MrPeanut said:
So is a militia, by today's standards, still really comparable to the military?
Click to expand...
It would be distinct from the standing army. But militiamen would have the right to have heavy military weapons.
 
jet57 said:
Illusions aren't real, you know that right?
Click to expand...

Scientific concepts, while not physical, are certainly real. Not illusions.
 
ecofarm said:
Scientific concepts, while not physical, are certainly real. Not illusions.
Click to expand...

Scientific concepts are nothing more than that man. They are not tangible and therefore carry no legal weight.

The "natural rights" argument just isn't going to work ec.
 
jet57 said:
Natural rights are a figment of the human imagination and you have no way of proving otherwise.
Click to expand...
Billions of animals killed by humans and other animals over time prove that natural rights exists.
Stating otherwise, simply means you do not understand the definition.
The more refined definition of the natural rights of man as defined by John Locke, is only a little different.
Read more history!
 
jet57 said:
The first amendment was written to protect dissent. The second amendment was written to establish militias and armed citizens. Gun control has a very long history in this country, so I would suggest that you read some our history and gain a responsible perspective on it.
Click to expand...

Yes, you want to read, but don't provide sources. You don't even make an argument here, except to repeat what we all already know.
 
MrPeanut said:
Militia and infantry are not the same thing. A militia is a group of citizens that ideally have some training. Infantry refers to professional soldiers. Wouldn't those be separate classes of weapons?
Click to expand...

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

― Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

This is for all those who wish to weasel word their way to a specific interpretation not intended by the founders.
 
American said:
Yes, you want to read, but don't provide sources. You don't even make an argument here, except to repeat what we all already know.
Click to expand...

Go out and read yourself, that way you can at least appear as though you know what you're talking about. You may wish to start with a re-reading of the second Amendment; everything I just said about it is in there.
 
longview said:
Billions of animals killed by humans and other animals over time prove that natural rights exists.
Stating otherwise, simply means you do not understand the definition.
The more refined definition of the natural rights of man as defined by John Locke, is only a little different.
Read more history!
Click to expand...

And from where did Locke derive his inspiration for said writing on "Natural Rights"?

The only way a natural right exists is if there are two people who agree to them.

And this -
Billions of animals killed by humans and other animals over time prove that natural rights exists.
Click to expand...
is really an ignorant statement.
 
American said:
This is for all those who wish to weasel word their way to a specific interpretation not intended by the founders.
Click to expand...

Right, but that is why the second amendment is argued about so much. It isn't clear what a well regulated militia is referring to. I understand that the common argument is that all citizens of a certain age are considered part of the militia. Those citizens belong to the "unorganized militia" which is why it confuses me so much. Is the unorganized militia automatically considered well regulated or what?
 
MrPeanut said:
Right, but that is why the second amendment is argued about so much. It isn't clear what a well regulated militia is referring to. I understand that the common argument is that all citizens of a certain age are considered part of the militia. Those citizens belong to the "unorganized militia" which is why it confuses me so much. Is the unorganized militia automatically considered well regulated or what?
Click to expand...
That's the legal definition of the militia. Frankly I'm not sure I believe in the unorganized militia.
 
jet57 said:
And from where did Locke derive his inspiration for said writing on "Natural Rights"?

The only way a natural right exists is if there are two people who agree to them.

And this - is really an ignorant statement.
Click to expand...

You completely misunderstand what natural rights are, perhaps Wiki, can help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government,
and so are universal and inalienable
Click to expand...
Animals posses natural rights, which are loosely based on their place on the food chain.
Also two people do not have to agree on what natural rights are.
The natural rights of man is an enhancement of pure natural rights,
in as much as we form governments for the purpose of protecting those rights we value most.
The US constitution enumerated them in our Bill of rights.
 
longview said:
You completely misunderstand what natural rights are, perhaps Wiki, can help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Animals posses natural rights, which are loosely based on their place on the food chain.
Also two people do not have to agree on what natural rights are.
The natural rights of man is an enhancement of pure natural rights,
in as much as we form governments for the purpose of protecting those rights we value most.
The US constitution enumerated them in our Bill of rights.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about dude. People decide who has natural rights and who doesn't. If animals had natural rights - we wouldn't eat them now would we.

And from where did Locke get his inspiration? C'mon now, you know more than me - right?
 
jet57 said:
The only way a natural right exists is if there are two people who agree to them.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The only way a right exists is if two people agree. The only way a natural right exists is if everyone (equal before the law and sane) agrees. Life, expression and self defense we all agree on, they're socially natural.
 
ecofarm said:
Incorrect. The only way a right exists is if two people agree. The only way a natural right exists is if everyone (equal before the law and sane) agrees. Life, expression and self defense we all agree on, they're socially natural.
Click to expand...

Prove what you just asserted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom