• 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!

Please Stop Debating the Second Amendment Crowd.......

Vadinho said:
I can tell you one thing the founding fathers did not want. They did not want black people to own guns. They were not that crazy about Native Americans owning guns either. They were very concerned that without a standing army, the US could not muster an armed force in time to repel an invasion. So, they gave the militias the express right to own guns. First thing they passed was in 1792, the Militia Act compelling men to own guns to support a national militia. Back then, most people used fists, knives or swords in self-defense. Guns were not very reliable and expensive.
Click to expand...

the second amendment was not intended to GIVE anything but rather recognize a right all the founders saw as pre-existing government.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is one of the most inane comments I have seen. It essentially means you cannot counter Glith's well articulated and accurate assertion concerning the Supreme Court history
Click to expand...

Oh, I have countered his and yours, TurtleDude. You guys are yammering away about nothing. You WILL follow the law, since your GCDS (gun-crazee delusion syndrome) has destroyed your ability to reason.
 
jamesbyoung said:
Oh, I have countered his and yours, TurtleDude. You guys are yammering away about nothing. You WILL follow the law, since your GCDS (gun-crazee delusion syndrome) has destroyed your ability to reason.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see any reason brought to bear by the bannerrhoid movement-unless it is from the few who admit that their jihad against gun rights is based on politics. You all don't even have a clue about the guns you are so afraid of
 
TurtleDude said:
I have yet to see any reason brought to bear by the bannerrhoid movement-unless it is from the few who admit that their jihad against gun rights is based on politics. You all don't even have a clue about the guns you are so afraid of
Click to expand...

There is no bannerhood movement of any significance, bro.
 
TurtleDude said:
the second amendment was not intended to GIVE anything but rather recognize a right all the founders saw as pre-existing government.
Click to expand...

Guns were not very common back then. They did not work very well either and were very expensive. Ammunition was scarce as well. Not sure where you get this idea from, can you cite any discussions at the convention that support your notion?
 
jamesbyoung said:
While I don't agree with some of ashuribanipul's thoughts, he is consistent, logical, and intelligent in his presentations.
Click to expand...

Well...I certainly try to be. I appreciate the compliment.
 
jamesbyoung said:
There is no bannerhood movement of any significance, bro.
Click to expand...

tell that to people in California, CT, MD, NY, and NJ who cannot buy normal capacity handgun magazines etc.
 
Vadinho said:
Guns were not very common back then. They did not work very well either and were very expensive. Ammunition was scarce as well. Not sure where you get this idea from, can you cite any discussions at the convention that support your notion?
Click to expand...

Read Cruikshank a 1870s case. BTW the idiocy of that fraudulent author has been discredited.
 
TurtleDude said:
tell that to people in California, CT, MD, NY, and NJ who cannot buy normal capacity handgun magazines etc.
Click to expand...

That is not a ban of guns, my friend, only constitutionally allowed regulation.

That you think differently does not change the reality of that law.
 
jamesbyoung said:
That is not a ban of guns, my friend, only constitutionally allowed regulation.

That you think differently does not change the reality of that law.
Click to expand...

what a bit of gaping dishonesty. Those are about gun bans. Whether you claim they are constitutional or not doesnt change the fact that people in those states cannot buy firearms that The author of Heller noted should be covered by heller.
 
TurtleDude said:
Read Cruikshank a 1870s case. BTW the idiocy of that fraudulent author has been discredited.
Click to expand...

His book had flaws but one of them was not that he maintained guns were not as common or as functional as imagined. If Cruikshank has any bearing on this is it because the judge mentioned natural law existing prior to the adoption of the constitution? Have you ever seen a complete list of what constitutes natural law from any source at any time?
 
Vadinho said:
His book had flaws but one of them was not that he maintained guns were not as common or as functional as imagined. If Cruikshank has any bearing on this is it because the judge mentioned natural law existing prior to the adoption of the constitution? Have you ever seen a complete list of what constitutes natural law from any source at any time?
Click to expand...

the fact is-there is no dispute among legal scholars of either the day, or currently, that the natural right of self defense was the underlying right recognized in the Second. On top of that, arms of an individual nature were common during the time of the founders.
 
TurtleDude said:
the fact is-there is no dispute among legal scholars of either the day, or currently, that the natural right of self defense was the underlying right recognized in the Second. On top of that, arms of an individual nature were common during the time of the founders.
Click to expand...

Care to cite any experts not associated with Heller in that analysis of the origins of the 2nd amendment? If the intent was to protect the right of self-defense, why not say so clearly and list all the various weapons one could use to defend oneself including rapiers, knives, bow and arrows, pikes, lances, swords, pistols, rifles, etc? Why only arms? They did not mention cannons, could a person have a cannon to defend his home from attack? No, the amendment was about the militias and the lack of a standing army. In defense of your argument, it is true that self-defense was never intended to be restricted by the government but your position here seems to be that the only way to defend oneself was by a gun. As I stated, guns were expensive, armies needed to be called up in an instant and war at that time required armed soldiers.
 
Vadinho said:
Care to cite any experts not associated with Heller in that analysis of the origins of the 2nd amendment? If the intent was to protect the right of self-defense, why not say so clearly and list all the various weapons one could use to defend oneself including rapiers, knives, bow and arrows, pikes, lances, swords, pistols, rifles, etc? Why only arms? They did not mention cannons, could a person have a cannon to defend his home from attack? No, the amendment was about the militias and the lack of a standing army. In defense of your argument, it is true that self-defense was never intended to be restricted by the government but your position here seems to be that the only way to defend oneself was by a gun. As I stated, guns were expensive, armies needed to be called up in an instant and war at that time required armed soldiers.
Click to expand...

so it is your well learned belief that the natural right-one that existed from the dawn of time-was for states to have a militia? OK run with that. And I believe the second protects any weapon that a citizen would normally keep and bear and is useful for self defense-the Courts agreed with me that Nunchuck bans violate the second and so do bans on switchblade knives

so yes the founders also intended the following to be protected

Poleaxes
Spears
bucklers
swords, rapiers, cutlasses, broad swords, war hammers, tomahawks
dirks, daggers, knives, flails, clubs, sticks, cudgels, morning stars, slings
saps, pistols, shotguns, rifles, muskets, brass knuckles etc.
 
Vadinho said:
Care to cite any experts not associated with Heller in that analysis of the origins of the 2nd amendment? If the intent was to protect the right of self-defense, why not say so clearly and list all the various weapons one could use to defend oneself including rapiers, knives, bow and arrows, pikes, lances, swords, pistols, rifles, etc? Why only arms? They did not mention cannons, could a person have a cannon to defend his home from attack? No, the amendment was about the militias and the lack of a standing army. In defense of your argument, it is true that self-defense was never intended to be restricted by the government but your position here seems to be that the only way to defend oneself was by a gun. As I stated, guns were expensive, armies needed to be called up in an instant and war at that time required armed soldiers.
Click to expand...

  • "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." — George Washington, Massachusetts' US Constitution Ratification Convention, February 6, 1788
  • "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." — Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
  • "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
  • "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' US Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788
  • "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms ... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms … The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." — Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
  • The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." — James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46
  • "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." — Noah Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
  • "f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 29

    [*]"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." — Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

    [*]The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” — Fisher Ames, Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789


As has been previously pointed out, the Second Amendment was created by the Anti-Federalists in order to preserve the ancient right of the people (dating back to at least 1215 England) to keep and bear arms, and to prohibit the Federalist from enacting any restrictions on those bearable arms.
 
And the story continues...

Institute on the Constitution Uses Fake George Washington Quote on Second Amendment – Warren Throckmorton

As us usual with quotes attributed to founders, the context and conversation that led to the quote is rarely mentioned nor is the fact that during the convention many ideas were proposed and discarded in favor of what we see today in the BOR. While we are quoting sources, lets try this:

The Second Amendment - Definition, Text & Rights - HISTORY

So we see that the debate continues. What made sense in 1788 for reasons known to the people of the time may or may not make sense in the original argument today. Are we part of a militia? No. Do we have slave patrols that must be armed and kept within states that cannot be taken by a federal government to leave slave owners at risk? No. Do we have the constant threat of war by foreign powers on all sides? No. Are we conquering native peoples through force? No. Are we completely devoid of police protection today as they were in 1788? No. So we are left with the self-defense argument alone. But self-defense is not an open mandate to defend yourself with any weapon, limits can and are placed upon them from time to time as technology advances. Are guns a fabric of American identity? For some, yes. For many others who live in constant fear of our fellow gun owning citizens, no. Lastly, the idea of natural rights is an easy rationale for just about anything since they have never been completely listed nor agreed upon by any majority of opinion. They were ideas promoted by philosophers only. While I agree that all human beings deserve to live with certain rights upheld by governments, no one can define them nor is there any global consensus on what they are today.
 
Vadinho said:
And the story continues...

Institute on the Constitution Uses Fake George Washington Quote on Second Amendment – Warren Throckmorton

As us usual with quotes attributed to founders, the context and conversation that led to the quote is rarely mentioned nor is the fact that during the convention many ideas were proposed and discarded in favor of what we see today in the BOR. While we are quoting sources, lets try this:

The Second Amendment - Definition, Text & Rights - HISTORY

So we see that the debate continues. What made sense in 1788 for reasons known to the people of the time may or may not make sense in the original argument today. Are we part of a militia? No. Do we have slave patrols that must be armed and kept within states that cannot be taken by a federal government to leave slave owners at risk? No. Do we have the constant threat of war by foreign powers on all sides? No. Are we conquering native peoples through force? No. Are we completely devoid of police protection today as they were in 1788? No. So we are left with the self-defense argument alone. But self-defense is not an open mandate to defend yourself with any weapon, limits can and are placed upon them from time to time as technology advances. Are guns a fabric of American identity? For some, yes. For many others who live in constant fear of our fellow gun owning citizens, no. Lastly, the idea of natural rights is an easy rationale for just about anything since they have never been completely listed nor agreed upon by any majority of opinion. They were ideas promoted by philosophers only. While I agree that all human beings deserve to live with certain rights upheld by governments, no one can define them nor is there any global consensus on what they are today.
Click to expand...

Still having difficulty comprehending "shall not be infringed" I see. I'm not surprised. It is very common for the anti-American left to become myopic and focus on only what they want to see, not what the text actually says. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not conditioned on membership with any militia. Nor is it a right that has to be justified to you or anyone else. Nobody cares whether you think it is useful or not, because you don't get to make that decision. Nor are individual rights determined by consensus. It is always the fascist left trying to decide what is or isn't necessary for others. It is the tell-tale trait of their mental illness.
 
Vadinho said:
Care to cite any experts not associated with Heller in that analysis of the origins of the 2nd amendment? If the intent was to protect the right of self-defense, why not say so clearly and list all the various weapons one could use to defend oneself including rapiers, knives, bow and arrows, pikes, lances, swords, pistols, rifles, etc? Why only arms? They did not mention cannons, could a person have a cannon to defend his home from attack? No, the amendment was about the militias and the lack of a standing army. In defense of your argument, it is true that self-defense was never intended to be restricted by the government but your position here seems to be that the only way to defend oneself was by a gun. As I stated, guns were expensive, armies needed to be called up in an instant and war at that time required armed soldiers.
Click to expand...

The right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance of the law if it is not specifically about "the Poor sleeping under bridges."

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not individual rights. It says so in the first clause and there no no Individual terms in our entire Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution. All terms are collective and plural.
 
Glitch said:
Still having difficulty comprehending "shall not be infringed" I see. I'm not surprised. It is very common for the anti-American left to become myopic and focus on only what they want to see, not what the text actually says. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not conditioned on membership with any militia. Nor is it a right that has to be justified to you or anyone else. Nobody cares whether you think it is useful or not, because you don't get to make that decision. Nor are individual rights determined by consensus. It is always the fascist left trying to decide what is or isn't necessary for others. It is the tell-tale trait of their mental illness.
Click to expand...

Since the security of our free States is the End and the Militia is the means; it means there can be no prohibition on lgbtq community regarding keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

An army group in reserve, or we are not going!
 
Vadinho said:
And the story continues...

Institute on the Constitution Uses Fake George Washington Quote on Second Amendment – Warren Throckmorton

As us usual with quotes attributed to founders, the context and conversation that led to the quote is rarely mentioned nor is the fact that during the convention many ideas were proposed and discarded in favor of what we see today in the BOR. While we are quoting sources, lets try this:

The Second Amendment - Definition, Text & Rights - HISTORY

So we see that the debate continues. What made sense in 1788 for reasons known to the people of the time may or may not make sense in the original argument today. Are we part of a militia? No. Do we have slave patrols that must be armed and kept within states that cannot be taken by a federal government to leave slave owners at risk? No. Do we have the constant threat of war by foreign powers on all sides? No. Are we conquering native peoples through force? No. Are we completely devoid of police protection today as they were in 1788? No. So we are left with the self-defense argument alone. But self-defense is not an open mandate to defend yourself with any weapon, limits can and are placed upon them from time to time as technology advances. Are guns a fabric of American identity? For some, yes. For many others who live in constant fear of our fellow gun owning citizens, no. Lastly, the idea of natural rights is an easy rationale for just about anything since they have never been completely listed nor agreed upon by any majority of opinion. They were ideas promoted by philosophers only. While I agree that all human beings deserve to live with certain rights upheld by governments, no one can define them nor is there any global consensus on what they are today.
Click to expand...

No, there is another argument you've missed, and as far as I can tell, it's the decisive one: the historical argument. History is full of instances of populations giving up their weapons. And for the most part--with just two exceptions I can think of, in fact--those populations learned to regret having done so. Human beings are nasty, violent, power-seeking creatures who will almost always seek out not merely undue advantage over others, but advantage that isn't needed. Governments that start out egalitarian become tyrannical. Companies or other organizations do the same. The people must be able to bring to bear as much force, or nearly as much force, as could be brought to bear against them. Again, history shows us that when that is no longer the case, it usually leads to some very bad outcomes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom