• 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!

Shouldn't the entire U.S be considered a gun free zone?

Bucky

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
28,575
Reaction score
6,362
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
 
Bucky said:
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

You assume wrong.
 
Bucky said:
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

Yes, you assume wrong. The Founding Fathers were very pro gun ownership for every person. They considered the citizens of the country as the bulwark against tyranny and the defender of Liberty.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
 
Bucky said:
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.
Click to expand...

Actually YOU don't.

You can always emigrate to one of those nice, safer countries any time you want...oh if you meet THEIR immigration requirements of course. Most are not too fond of illegal immigrants either. :coffeepap:

Bucky said:
The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

As for this?

Feel free to search through my prior Forum posts on the subject for the educated response to your false assumptions.

This is one of my favorites:

Captain Adverse said:
Well, your disagreement notwithstanding....
Click to expand...

Which leads to this one specifically about the militia issue:

Captain Adverse said:
...The inherent right of a citizen to keep and bear arms forms the foundation of a militia, not vice versa. This is something that so many advocates of gun control keep misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

;)
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

Yep, therefore you are not likely to get a judicial appointment.
 
Bucky said:
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS has already ruled on that issue. In Heller Vs. DC, the ruling was that an individual does have the right to have a gun.

more

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It was also clearly stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
The SCOTUS has already ruled on that issue. In Heller Vs. DC, the ruling was that an individual does have the right to have a gun.

more
Click to expand...

Also many of the freed slaves had guns and they used them to prevent trouble with renegade whites who wanted to victimize the newly freed. Slaves could never own guns. Free men could.
 
Bucky said:
When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is the exact opposite. And this can be seen in the Militia Acts of 1792.

These are 2 acts that essentially conscripted every male citizen in the United States into the militia. And in addition to this, it also mandated that every male own a rifle in a suitable state of repair, and to be reasonably proficient in it's use.

And that every 6 months they report to a muster, and at said muster present "a musket, bayonet and belt, 1/4 pound of powder, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack."

So actually, the intent that every male was part of the militia, and would own a rifle or musket. The exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. Their intent was that every citizen own a gun.
 
I would suggest that if you want to live in a country that is a "gun free" zone, you are free to move to one.

The Founding Fathers of this country had due concern for keeping firearms in the hands of the citizens, if it hadn't been for the citizen militia's we would be under British control and no independence. The first thing the British did when they got wind of the rebellion going on it their colonies was to impose a gun ban. On April 19th, 1775 the British marched about 600 British regulars to seize the firearms and gunpowder located in Concord, I think we all know what happened with that. The British put an embargo on all firearms and ammunition going to the colonies.

Our own Federal Government no longer sees the States as its handlers, but views them as Colonies, all we have done in this day and age is to trade the tyranny of King George III with the tyranny an all powerful Federal Government. This is why we have a 2nd amendment.
 
Terryj said:
Our own Federal Government no longer sees the States as its handlers, but views them as Colonies, all we have done in this day and age is to trade the tyranny of King George III with the tyranny an all powerful Federal Government. This is why we have a 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

I am struggling to find any sense in this statement. You trade one tyranny for another yet still worship guns as a road to freedom from tyranny? Despite the fact that you have both guns and tyranny.

It would seem that the reality of all this " need guns to fight tyranny" crap is nothing more than the tyrants propaganda to keep americans believing they have freedom while your rulers do as they please.
 
Bucky said:
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

Only recently, has major mass shootings really occurred. Throughout our 200 year history, we've always had guns.
 
Terryj said:
On April 19th, 1775 the British marched about 600 British regulars to seize the firearms and gunpowder located in Concord, I think we all know what happened with that. The British put an embargo on all firearms and ammunition going to the colonies.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not quite true.

The British were marching on Concord to seize or destroy cannons and their powder. And in fact they did do this, destroying the powder and cannons and were returning to Boston. They had no real interest in the firearms stored there.

And the embargo did little about gunpowder. There was already a gunpowder industry in the colonies in 1775, but it was relatively small. Mostly local blacksmiths, farmers and chemists turning out small amounts for local use. The largest gunpowder mill in Colonial hands was in Pennsylvania, and that that turned out a decent amount of gunpowder. But it was suitable only for rifles and muskets, not for cannons.

The earliest powder mill in the colonies was built in Milton, Massachusetts in 1674. But it blew up in 1744, and was rebuilt as a sawmill and chocolate mill.

The biggest issue during the Revolutionary War was the lack of saltpeter and sulfur, minerals in short supply on the East Coast.
 
enderpotato00 said:
Only recently, has major mass shootings really occurred. Throughout our 200 year history, we've always had guns.
Click to expand...
Yeah, back then they were called massacres....usually with them pesky Indians being either the victims or the perps....
 
enderpotato00 said:
Only recently, has major mass shootings really occurred. Throughout our 200 year history, we've always had guns.
Click to expand...
2A says regulated militia, doesn't say regulated guns...
 
Bucky said:
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

It wasn't insane at the time. It has been driven to insanity by the extremes in this country. In my younger years, this stuff was never a problem, anybody who wanted to own guns owned 'em, and nobody worried. The far right-wing has jerked around people and got the far left-wing going crazy, so now we have trouble. Both sides to get back under their rocks.
 
Bucky said:
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

Well regulated meant well trained
 
We're keeping the rifles. You have no choice.

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk
 
I'm pleased we have the right to bear arms. I hope that right endures long after the deadly scourge of socialism dies off.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Actually, it is the exact opposite. And this can be seen in the Militia Acts of 1792.

These are 2 acts that essentially conscripted every male citizen in the United States into the militia. And in addition to this, it also mandated that every male own a rifle in a suitable state of repair, and to be reasonably proficient in it's use.

And that every 6 months they report to a muster, and at said muster present "a musket, bayonet and belt, 1/4 pound of powder, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack."

So actually, the intent that every male was part of the militia, and would own a rifle or musket. The exact opposite of what you are trying to claim. Their intent was that every citizen own a gun.
Click to expand...

That's very interesting

BUT does the Supreme Court's judgement mean a legal resident in the USA can own ANY kind of gun ?
 
Bucky said:
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

We do,however, have a well regulated militia.

What's your point?
 
Rich2018 said:
Which group of people are you regarding as the militia ?
Click to expand...

This one:

A militia /mɪˈlɪʃə/[1] is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of a warrior nobility class
 
jimbo said:
This one:

A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of a warrior nobility class
Click to expand...


And does the USA have such an organization ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom