Gun control debate (merged)

#23,876
#23,876
luthervol said:
Establishing the framework for the conversation.
Plus, I don't believe the 2a ever mentions guns. It says something about a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and then something else about bear Arms. No one in their right mind defines Arms as any and every type of "gun" that can be created.
Click to expand...
You conveniently left out "The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#23,882
#23,882
C-south said:
Lol. You left out the “something else”.
Click to expand...
I was hopefully confident that you guys had read it and was moderately familiar with it.
All I hear is repeated from you guys is "shall not be infringed:.
What I never hear from you guys is "well regulated militia."
I think they are equally important.
 
#23,883
#23,883
luthervol said:
I was hopefully confident that you guys had read it and was moderately familiar with it.
All I hear is repeated from you guys is "shall not be infringed:.
What I never hear from you guys is "well regulated militia."
I think they are equally important.
Click to expand...

That's because you guys aren't trying to shut down the states National Guards, you're just trying to infringe on our right to bear arms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLS INC., 0nelilreb, InVOLuntary and 3 others
#23,884
#23,884
luthervol said:
I was hopefully confident that you guys had read it and was moderately familiar with it.
All I hear is repeated from you guys is "shall not be infringed:.
What I never hear from you guys is "well regulated militia."
I think they are equally important.
Click to expand...

The right to bear arms and/or maintain a well regulated militia SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. One isn’t dependent on the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, Orangeslice13 and UT_Dutchman
#23,887
#23,887
85SugarVol said:
Ok.

You had made a comment about imposing burdensome taxes as a means of control.
Someone said let’s do the same for voting.

You said something to the effect of “I’m all for it”.
Click to expand...
Both of my comments were in jest.
They went back to someone talking about alcohol and the failure of prohibition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
#23,888
#23,888
Have never understood the anti-gunners' argument hinging on the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," meaning if a militia is not organized or maintained by the state, then citizens should not be able to obtain, keep, or bear arms.

If the citizens do not keep and bear arms, a militia, well-regulated or not, is impossible. A militia is "An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers." - American Heritage Dictionary. I believe the Founders understood that militias could come and go, may or may not be maintained or "well-regulated." But they knew that the only way to instantly form an armed mass of men quickly would require the ordinary citizens be armed and, in fact, be armed with weapons suitable for waging war.

And with regards to the argument the Founders never thought the 2A would be to prevent a tyrannical Federal government:

"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."
- Noah Webster

I'd say they understood all the reasons for the 2A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496, InVOLuntary, davethevol and 8 others
#23,889
#23,889
hog88 said:
They are two completely different things. "shall not be infringed" doesn't have a damn thing to do with a "well regulated militia".
Click to expand...

It is more nuanced than that IMO. I think the 2nd was about the right of a "state" to maintain a militia. hence the rights to bear arms to have such a civilian militia is imperative.

What is a militia..the state militia, aka NG, or just ordinary citizens?

One thing that is missing is the word "free state". That is a state of the Union. So I take from it..if the state Tennessee wanted to raise a civilian populace of overwhelmingly armed citizens in which the rights to maintain arms, then they have a right. Now that the NG has basically been federalized and funded, they are no longer a part of the state could also be argued.

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.

Seems the leftists want their cake and eat it to.

Heck..why am I wasting time..We know it was a bulwark against Federal authoritarianism
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, davethevol, Orangeslice13 and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top