Who believes the claim that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm militias

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Turtledude, Sep 21, 2017.

?

Was the 2nd Amendment intended to arm militias and not recognize an individual right

  1. Yes, the second amendment was designed to enable the government to arm itself

    13.9%
  2. Of course not, the bill of rights was not designed to expand the power of government

    52.8%
  3. The purpose of the second amendment was to guarantee a right the founders believed men had

    47.2%
  4. The second amendment recognized a right the founders believed pre-existed government

    69.4%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. tom444

    tom444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    3,835
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, this is what I said: "You already said your rights come from a creator. Well, guess what, mine don't, they come from me, and the other people willing to fight for them. We the people, not some abstract creator manufactured by men for their purpose."

    What part of, "......... me, and the other people willing to fight for them. We the people.....", didn't you understand?
     
  2. Muggoof

    Muggoof Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    The 2nd amendment clearly states "the right of the people to bear arms." Yes, having it and the militia part in the same sentence can cause some confusion, but we have to remember that the English language and how we write has changed dramatically since then. Personally, I believe that it is meant for all people, because the ordinary people of the colonies took up arms to gain our freedom from England.
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  3. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do not see my interpretation as being better than another. Do you think that your interpretation is better than another's, if so how so?

    Subjective opinion.
     
  4. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,614
    Likes Received:
    1,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Subjective opinion.
     
  5. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,276
    Likes Received:
    20,265
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    nope-=spent forty years on this subject. contributed to several law review articles on the issue. Lectured law professors on the subject at several major league law schools. no one has come up with any evidence within the first 100 years of the constitution that says otherwise--give it a shot, come up with some contradictory evidence
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  6. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What part of "PEOPLE UNABLE TO FIGHT" don't *you* understand?

    Do those that are unable to fight *NOT* have any rights?

    Simple question. Should be a simple answer -- except for you since the answer will undercut your whole argument!
     
  7. tom444

    tom444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    3,835
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What the hell are you talking about? In America, right now, we the people fight for those who can't fight for themselves. Get it? What planet are you on?

    Example: Twenty year old goes into the Army. Goes to Afghanistan. Gets shot. Is paralyzed. We the people pay him $8,000 a month in the form of VA compensation. The VA gives him $25,000 plus for a handicap equipped car. Etc., and so on. All the money and assistance comes from we the people in the form of taxes.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2017
  8. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is *NOT* what you said!

    "Well, guess what, mine don't, they come from me, and the other people willing to fight for them. "

    Some people are not willing because they can't be -- those in a coma, those who are intellectually undeveloped, etc.

    Now you are saying those people have rights even if they can't fight for them.

    If your rights only come from *you* because you are willing to fight for them then how do they come from others that can't fight for them? Do you *give* them their rights in some manner?

    How can rights come from you if you don't have them inherently?
     
  9. tom444

    tom444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    3,835
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    JESUS KEY-RIST. WE THE F***ING PEOPLE GIVE THOSE WHO CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES THE HELP THEY NEED. GET IT? IT'S CALLED A SOCIETY.

    Example: Twenty year old goes into the Army. Goes to Afghanistan. Gets shot. Is paralyzed. We the people pay him $8,000 a month in the form of VA compensation. The VA gives him $25,000 plus for a handicap equipped car. Etc., and so on. All the money and assistance comes from we the people in the form of taxes.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2017
  10. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, according to your previous statements, why didn't those men use their brains to stay out of trouble and not get paralyzed ??
     
    upside222 likes this.
  11. tom444

    tom444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    3,835
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ^^^^^^^Imagine?
     
  12. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You said your rights come from inside you based on your willingness to fight for them.

    Now you are saying that rights come from outside a person and are given to them.

    Consistency is not your strong suit, is it?
     
  13. tom444

    tom444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    3,835
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One more time.

    What part of, "......... me, and the other people willing to fight for them. We the people.....", didn't you understand?

    This is what you originally responded to: "You already said your rights come from a creator. Well, guess what, mine don't, they come from me, and the other people willing to fight for them. We the people, not some abstract creator manufactured by men for their purpose."

    Get it this time? Can you follow it this time?
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  14. upside222

    upside222 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    1,195
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see that you are *still* not being consistent.

    Rights can't come "from" me while also being "given" to me. It's one or the other!
     
  15. tom444

    tom444 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2017
    Messages:
    3,835
    Likes Received:
    1,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I suppose there are highly confused people out there who think that their rights come from an imaginary creator, or that the 10 commandments belong in a courthouse, but of course they don't.

    Imaginary creators rights:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  16. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If rights came from man alone, mob rule would be the standard under all circumstances, with the minority always being in the wrong, always being at the mercy of the majority.

    Under the standard of rights coming from man, homosexual behavior would still be criminalized, because the majority opposed such ever being legal.
     
    upside222 likes this.
  17. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    My quote is the Second Amendment itself. There is nothing in it about keeping and bearing arms for non-militia purposes. It simply does not say what your side wants it to say.
     
  18. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There doesn't need to be, seeing it's obvious that the keeping of and bearing arms for non-militia purposes serves the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  19. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nor is there anything to be found in the first amendment pertaining to which instances of free speech are protected, and which are not. Nor is there anything to be found in the fourth amendment explaining precisely which situations would require a warrant, and which would not.
     
    upside222 likes this.
  20. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Those amendments don't have preambles which limit the scope of their operative clause.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  21. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So because Madison wrote it with a preamble the scope is limited?
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
  22. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of the amendment found within the bill of rights were intended to establish the authority of the government, while also limiting the rights and freedoms of the people they were intended to protect against government overreach. The preamble of the second amendment does not possess any type of authority to dictate what uses of firearms are legal.
     
    upside222 likes this.
  23. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Straw man. The Second Amendment is neutral on the issue of guns being used for non-militia purposes. But due to other parts of the Constitution the government has authority over guns.
     
  24. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Of course.
     
  25. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    WOW

    Some still peddling those myths.

    The second has explicit words saying the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Cite the parts of the constitution declaring the Feds have the rights over guns?
     
    upside222 likes this.

Share This Page