• 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!

Constitutional limits?

Rich2018 said:
It's totally ambigious
Click to expand...
not in any way you can demonstrate.

The 2nd amendment states it is to maintain a militia, so does it only apply to male citizens of military age and competence ?
Click to expand...
The 2nd states no such thing.
Does it mean the state issues those arms and militiamen can take them home like the Swiss used to do ?
Click to expand...
it means exactly what the crystal clear plain English states. The peoples right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed.
 
Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself.

Context is every Thing.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Click to expand...
 
Rich2018 said:
The Constitution is a terrible document because it is so vague.
Click to expand...

It's not vague at all. It was written in simple non lawyer language that is easy to understand. What's vague or complicated about "Shall not be infringed"? Or "Congress shall make no law". The problem is that too often people don't like what it says, so try to conjure up an alternative meaning more to their liking.
 
rahl said:
not in any way you can demonstrate.
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment states it is to maintain a militia, so does it only apply to male citizens of military age and competence ?

Does it mean the state issues those arms and militiamen can take them home like the Swiss used to do ?


The 2nd states no such thing.
Click to expand...


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


it means exactly what the crystal clear plain English states. The peoples right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed.
Click to expand...

It's clear as mud

See above.
 
Rich2018 said:
True a genuine legal document is by necessity long and detailed

Never-the-less the Constitution is un-necessarily vague





If the Constitution every does get re-written, I think each clause should have an appendix to spell out what is meant and who we are to proceed in every imaginable case.
Click to expand...

The founders did that. From the Federalist Papers to writings to people like the letter explaining the separation of church and state, they were not remiss in attempting to explaining what they meant.
 
jimbo said:
It's not vague at all. It was written in simple non lawyer language that is easy to understand. What's vague or complicated about "Shall not be infringed"? Or "Congress shall make no law". The problem is that too often people don't like what it says, so try to conjure up an alternative meaning more to their liking.
Click to expand...

Th Constitution is absolutely vague and ambiguous

None more so than the 2nd amendment.
 
Rich2018 said:
The 2nd amendment states it is to maintain a militia, so does it only apply to male citizens of military age and competence ?
Click to expand...
no, the second amendment does not state this.

Does it mean the state issues those arms and militiamen can take them home like the Swiss used to do ?
Click to expand...
if you read the amendment, you would know the answer.



"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
yes, thank you for showing the second amendment does not say "The 2nd amendment states it is to maintain a militia".



It's clear as mud

See above.
Click to expand...
refuted above. It's in crystal clear English. It states unambiguously that the people have the right to keep and bear arms and it can not be infringed.
 
Rich2018 said:
Th Constitution is absolutely vague and ambiguous

None more so than the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

this has been refuted. The second is one of the clearest amendments listed in the document.
 
Rich2018 said:
Th Constitution is absolutely vague and ambiguous

None more so than the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

What is vague and ambiguous about "Shall shall not be infringed"?

Even if you buy the argument that the explanatory phrase "A well regulated militia,", is more than an explanatory phrase, it's still not vague and ambiguous.
 
rahl said:
no, the second amendment does not state this.
Click to expand...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



if you read the amendment, you would know the answer.
Click to expand...


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



yes, thank you for showing the second amendment does not say "The 2nd amendment states it is to maintain a militia".
Click to expand...


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



refuted above. It's in crystal clear English. It states unambiguously that the people have the right to keep and bear arms and it can not be infringed.
Click to expand...

And the justification of keeping and bearing arms is so a militia, that's free state needs for its defense, is maintained

But who are the militia ?

Is it just male citizens of military age ?
Is service obligatory ?
Are the weapons that people keep and bear issued by the militia (as makes sense) like the Swiss used to do ?



this has been refuted. The second is one of the clearest amendments listed in the document.
Click to expand...


As I said the 2nd amendment is clear as mud.
 
jimbo said:
What is vague and ambiguous about "Shall shall not be infringed"?

Even if you buy the argument that the explanatory phrase "A well regulated militia,", is more than an explanatory phrase, it's still not vague and ambiguous.
Click to expand...

See post #337.
 
Rich2018 said:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
yes, we've established already that the amendment does not state what you claimed it did. thank you for again showing that.





"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...
yes, we already know it doesn't say what you claimed it said.





"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

yep, still doesn't say what you claimed it did. very good.



And the justification of keeping and bearing arms is so a militia, that's free state needs for its defense, is maintained
Click to expand...
that's a reason.
But who are the militia ?
Click to expand...
irrelevant. the people have the right to keep and bear arms, not being connected to any militia.
Is it just male citizens of military age ?
Click to expand...
does the amendment say that, or does it say people?
Is service obligatory ?
Click to expand...
does the amendment say that? nope.
Are the weapons that people keep and bear issued by the militia (as makes sense) like the Swiss used to do ?
Click to expand...
does the amendment say that, or does it say the people have the right to keep and bear arms?





As I said the 2nd amendment is clear as mud.
Click to expand...
it's crystal clear. Your feigned obtuseness doesn't make the English language go away.
 
danielpalos said:
It is Your ignorance not our Constitution.
Click to expand...

Your cowardice at refusing to answer basic questions:


Who are the militia ?
Is it just male citizens of military age ?
Is service obligatory ? (if so, what law obligates this?)
Are the weapons that people keep and bear issued by the militia (as makes sense) like the Swiss used to do ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Your cowardice at refusing to answer basic questions:


Who are the militia ?
Is it just male citizens of military age ?
Is service obligatory ? (if so, what law obligates this?)
Are the weapons that people keep and bear issued by the militia (as makes sense) like the Swiss used to do ?
Click to expand...

Your constant appeals To and not From ignorance is what gives you away; trolls appeal To ignorance, just like You.
 
danielpalos said:
Your constant appeals To and not From ignorance is what gives you away; trolls appeal To ignorance, just like You.
Click to expand...


Why won't you answer ?

Who are the militia ?
Is it just male citizens of military age ?
Is service obligatory ? (if so, what law obligates this?)
Are the weapons that people keep and bear issued by the militia (as makes sense) like the Swiss used to do ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Why won't you answer ?

Who are the militia ?
Is it just male citizens of military age ?
Is service obligatory ? (if so, what law obligates this?)
Are the weapons that people keep and bear issued by the militia (as makes sense) like the Swiss used to do ?
Click to expand...
Because, you appeal To ignorance not From ignorance, like most any troll.
 
danielpalos said:
Because, you appeal To ignorance not From ignorance, like most any troll.
Click to expand...

Why won't you answer ?

Who makes up the militia, is it just male citizens of military age ?

Is service obligatory ? (if so, what law obligates this?)

Are the weapons that people keep and bear issued by the militia (as makes sense) like the Swiss used to do ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Why won't you answer ?

Who makes up the militia, is it just male citizens of military age ?

Is service obligatory ? (if so, what law obligates this?)

Are the weapons that people keep and bear issued by the militia (as makes sense) like the Swiss used to do ?
Click to expand...

I already did. You simply appeal to ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom