• 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

American said:
That's the legal definition of the militia. Frankly I'm not sure I believe in the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

Like I said in my first post, I am not claiming to be an expert on this issue. I feel sort of forced by all of the recent shootings to actually educate myself on the topic. As I understand it the organized militia is a state militia, and the unorganized militia applies to regular citizens between 17 and 45 years of age. I think that "well regulated" probably means self regulated, but I'm not sure I see how an unorganized militia could be properly self regulated.
 
jet57 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Animals have natural rights, and sometimes they eat us.
Locke's ideas are more of an argument against the divine right of kings.
 
ecofarm said:
Perform the experiment I provided, report your results.
Click to expand...

You can't prove anything you said. That's the point.

Because - you don't know what you're talking about. You're trying to prove a gun utopia ideology, nothing more.
 
longview said:
Animals have natural rights, and sometimes they eat us.
Locke's ideas are more of an argument against the divine right of kings.
Click to expand...

BS, you have no idea what you're talking about dude.

Where did Locke get his inspiration?
 
jet57 said:
You can't prove anything you said. That's the point.
Click to expand...

I gave you a simple experiment, a survey. It produces empirical evidence. Repeat the experiment, different times and places, as much as you want. The results will always be the same, proving the agreements are socially natural. Further, we know the agreements are driven by survival of the species.

Because - you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

You missed the point of the Enlightenment. In your own little world, it never happened. In your world, rights are still derived by authority and dependent on paper passed down by that authority. You have no concept of free man.

You're trying to prove a gun utopia ideology, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Who cares about guns? Self defense is a natural right and still there are limits, no right is absolute. Those limits can be and will be debated until the end of time.

There's a bigger issue here. You have failed to grasp a concept central to democracy, human rights and the free world. You don't seem to understand the basis of the Enlightenment, Revolutions and Western World.

One needs to grasp the concept of rights via society instead of rights via proclamation.

I've given you the experiment. It is empirical. You'll find it transcends time and place.
 
MrPeanut said:
Like I said in my first post, I am not claiming to be an expert on this issue. I feel sort of forced by all of the recent shootings to actually educate myself on the topic. As I understand it the organized militia is a state militia, and the unorganized militia applies to regular citizens between 17 and 45 years of age. I think that "well regulated" probably means self regulated, but I'm not sure I see how an unorganized militia could be properly self regulated.
Click to expand...

Lots of people avoid the Gun Control forum, but there are some well informed people in there. Just look for them. Regulated in the 18th century meant well trained and equipped, from what I've read.
 
longview said:
Animals have natural rights, and sometimes they eat us.
Locke's ideas are more of an argument against the divine right of kings.
Click to expand...

Rights are socially natural not biologically natural, animals don't matter.
 
American said:
Lots of people avoid the Gun Control forum, but there are some well informed people in there. Just look for them. Regulated in the 18th century meant well trained and equipped, from what I've read.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, it meant capable of holding a line (via training and equipment). Meaning people d.i.p. instead of breaking.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
No, the garand and the 1911 you have previously stated you owned. Both have a history of combat use.
Click to expand...

I don't own a garand.

But, why shouldn't I get rid of my 91/30?
 
American said:
Lots of people avoid the Gun Control forum, but there are some well informed people in there. Just look for them. Regulated in the 18th century meant well trained and equipped, from what I've read.
Click to expand...

What did "the right of the people" mean in the 18th century? And are you sure about that?
 
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...

We divide that via "arms". This has generally been regarded as firearms. No AT4s, LAWs, TOWs, mortars, grenades, claymores or other ordnance. Crew served arms (mgs and light mgs) are very restricted, only rich people with business or serious hobby. Additionally, no select-fire without rich person paperwork.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom