I don’t want links to other threads. I want you to support your claim by offering direct evidence here as you expect others to do. Links to other threads are not an argument. When I am addressing your clam in your thread it’s Impossible to be off topic. I accept your concession.
The direct evidence you requested is in those two threads. Read them (at least the OP).... comment on them.... or don't. I'm not going to say it makes no difference to me. I would love to see them challenged rationally. God knows I've tried to find somebody... anybody... to provide reasonable counter-arguments. To try to prove me wrong... But if you can't or won't... not much I can do. Those ARE my arguments. I wrote them! It's all I can say.
Just to humor you I have re-read the original posts of both your links. Neither provide any evidence to support your claim in this thread that a militia is no longer necessary. Here is your claim again.
That is not the claim of this thread. The claim is that the 2nd A says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia was necessary at the time to the security of a free state. If you agree with that, now that you have read the threads, I can answer any question you have by moving the conversation to the appropriate thread. If you are interested in a serious conversation about the topic, I would be more than happy to oblige. Ask your questions, and if they are not part of this topic, I can move them to one where they are. BTW, whether a militia is or is not necessary today is basically a matter of opinion. I think it's very clear that it isn't given that the security of a free state today is protected by the armed forces. Not a well regulated militia, like it used to be.
I want you to substantiate (with more than your opinion) the claim you made in this thread. Are you saying anything you post after the thread creation post can be unsubstantiated but taken seriously anyway? I don’t think that’s how a discussion works. If the only relevant information from you is contained in the first post of the thread why are you still commenting after 20 pages? Oh, I destroyed the premise of this thread in the first few pages.
I substantiate everything I say that needs to be substantiated. But I do it in the appropriate thread. Now, what is your specific question? I don't believe a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Which seems pretty obvious given that we now have a pretty effective (though not always efficient) standing army. Do you have any question, comment, counterargument...? If you do, go for it! Don't be shy
Its all nonsense. the right to keep and bear arms is a negative restriction that was imposted on a recently created government that had no power to infringe or interfere with a right that the founders believed man had since his dawn of history. In other words, the RKBA was not a right created by the constitution and thus was not able to be limited by the constitution since such limitation was never delegated to the new federal government
Of course. I told you I destroyed your argument already in this thread. But here’s a bullet point rundown of why your opinion has less value than reality. —without provisions for a militia there would have been no ratification of the Constitution. Without current provisions for militias the Union would dissolve. There are still states in the Union based on the provisions for militias. —this is evidenced by the fact even after national guard was “federalized” by the militia act of 1903 states were still granted unorganized militias to replace the federalized militia component. This would not have occurred if states did not still see a need for balance of power between federal troops and local militias. —many state have organized and active state defense forces under the unorganized militia provisions. Some state defense forces have active weapons training programs. —if militias were no longer necessary they would not exist. If they were not necessary to the Union there would have been a constitutional amendment striking the concept from the constitution completely instead of formation of unorganized and federalized branches in 1903. —states have the power to amend the constitution. You and your opinion do not. Only what states want in regard to militias are relevant and the states still demand unorganized militias. If they didn’t, the states would amend the constitution and remand all military authority to the federal government. —having a standing army has no relevance to your opinion.
This entire argument is pointless. Not only does Heller make the entire argument moot, but 200-years of jurisprudence also ignore every facet of the OP's OP. To put this in the clearest and simplest terms possible, the OP's arguments simply do not matter to the SCOTUS, and in light of Heller, are never going to matter.
Huh? Where? You haven't even addressed my point! The rest of your post has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Sure. Militias were great. But that has nothing to do with anything I have written. Nor does anything in your post. This thread is not about State Constitutions, or the militia act of 1903, or amending the constitution,... or any of the rest of your post. This is about the 2nd Amendment Focus!
I accept your concession. You can not support or defend statements you make on PF. You don’t even know the background of the 2A. You have claimed the part of the 2A that concerns the militia is outdated. I show conclusively that it is still relevant. You say I’m not discussing the 2A. Golem logic is no logic at all. Thanks for the opportunity you’ve provided me to show the forum you have no idea what you are talking about….again. Good luck peddling your unsubstantiated and now irrelevant opinions.
I explained the background of the 2nd A to you here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ I thought you said you read it. Oh... now I understand your previous post. You had me confused because you said you "destroyed" my argument. Because what you actually did was reinforce my point. You see... my point in this thread is not whether the well regulated militia is relevant today or not. However, the whole underlying purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that THAT is in fact the discussion that anybody who believes the 2nd A is relevant should have. In other words, the discussion about the 2nd A SHOULD be (at least for those who think the 2nd A is still relevant), whether a well regulated militia is still necessary today "to the security of a free state". Just that it's not the topic of this thread. Now... I don't believe it's necessary "to the security of a free state". Because we have a standing army. The framers didn't trust the standing army they had at the time. I do trust the standing army we have now. At least more than I would trust a well regulated militia. But that's it. I can't think of anything more to say about that topic.
It was a right the founders figured already existed and they made sure the federal government couldn't screw with it.
I will state this as fact I have observed 1) those who pretend that the second amendment does not guarantee an individual right STARTED at the point of disliking the politics of the pro gun movement and thus supported gun control. Their constitutional "position" was created as a necessity pretend their desired anti gun schemes are not unconstitutional 2) most of those who support the second amendment, understand firearms and honestly read the constitution as it was clearly meant to be interpreted when it comes to firearms-that being, the federal government has no proper power to limit what private citizens own and ON TOP OF THAT, the federal government is specifically banned from interfering with the keeping and bearing of arms that civilians normally would keep and bear. So the TENTH amendment is a blanket ban and the second amendment-while limited to arms (ie individual weapons as opposed to artillery and ordnance)-is a specific and negative restriction on the federal government
What the founders wanted to make sure of when they passed the 2nd A is explained in the following threads: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ In this one, we are in agreement, you and I have proven that this so-called "right" was not created by the 2nd A. So the purpose of this thread is served. Thank you for your help.
There is nothing in that post that supports your statement that a militia is no longer necessary. Also, it leaves out completely the main reason anti federalists and some federalists wanted a militia. That being the fact they did not trust a federalized military not to abuse their power and oppress states and individuals. You intentionally leave that out because it completely invalidates your premise. No. I destroyed your thread then just as I did again in the above posts and in this post. Your argument is based on false premises. If the statement I’ve quoted back to you repeatedly was not part of the point of the thread, you should not have posted it. Since you intentionally wrote it out and hit “post” it is now part of your point in this thread. If only the original post matters, please start a thread and walk away. When you make subsequent posts and claims they are open to criticism and debate. But this is your opinion. You do not value federalism or the Union of States. As I’ve shown you are in the vast minority in your opinion. States have the final say in the matter and they overwhelmingly agree militias are still necessary. If the states did not believe militias were still necessary they would not have them and they would amend the constitution and/or the state citizens would propose and pass a new militia act. It’s not that you can’t think of anything to say, it’s that if you actually talked about the real reasons we have militias your entire premise would collapse. You are intentionally omitting the primary objective the founders had for militias. When you do that your thread is meaningless.
Are you not reading? I SAID that that's where I explained to you the background of the 2nd A. As for whether or not a militia is necessary, that's a matter to resolve by supporters of the 2nd A. I am not a supporter of the 2nd A. Which means I would likely side with those who say it's no longer necessary, but don't actually care because well-regulated militias are unlikely to be called by Congress, as stated in Article 1, Clause 15 of the Constitution. No. It most certainly DOES NOT leave that out. But it's was not a matter of contention. NOBODY trusted the standing army back then. Not even the army itself. But that's besides the point. What that thread proves is that the 2nd A does not grant (confirm, affirm, address.... use the word you want) an individual right to own weapons. Which is what is relevant today. Today, only the most nutty conspiracy theorists don't trust that a standing army is the best defense to the security of a free state. And I'm just not interested in nutty conspiracy theories. Those belong in the conspiracy forum. Not in any serious forum. It's obvious you didn't read it. So why should I waste my time?
You did not include my point in ANY of your original posts. Perhaps you should read them. Now you are saying at least 2/3 of US states are nutty conspiracy theorists. LOL. I don’t care who you are, that’s funny. I accept your concession.
I did. And I said that I believed today a standing army is necessary to the security of a free state. Was that all you had? I guess so. Thanks for playing....
A discussion of founders and states today not wanting a standing army to be the only military presence is nowhere in your OP’s. Sorry. I’m not playing your games. I like facts. Which I posted. My acceptance of your concession is me not playing games. Good luck with your marketing now that you have called 2/3 of states nutty. LOL
Finally! That's right. Because it's a discussion for anybody who supports the 2nd A. I don't. I do have an opinion. But it's so obvious that it's would be ludicrous to discuss if a standing army is necessary to the security of a free state or not. I don't think states are nutty. PEOPLE are nutty. But I do understand why somebody with a nutty opinion would rather ascribe it to an inanimate object rather than assume it themselves.
Nice admission you base your opinions on cherry picked evidence. I prefer to consider all data and evidence when forming opinions. You have also tacitly admitted to presenting an argument specifically and intentionally based on incomplete information. That is deceitful, but predictable at this point. Your use of appeal to the stone and ad hominem fallacy further damages your credibility.
the bottom line is this 1) the federal government was never given any PROPER power whatsoever to regulate private citizens owning arms-any kind of arms, artillery, ordnance etc. The states-yes they had some powers consistent with their own state constitutional limits 2) the second amendment is not as sweeping a prohibition as the tenth. The second amendment does not protect artillery or ordnance, but rather individual arms that a citizen can keep and bear.
Madison and the boys really wanted gun control, they just never said so while they were living, but hid it in plain sight in the Bill of Rights, with comas, so that someone could figure out the enigma 250-years later, and revoke everyone's gun rights. Makes perfect sense.
