• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What Does the Second Amendment Really Say?

Here is What I Think:

  • The Second Amendment Does Not Guarantee Private Gun Ownership.

    Votes: 39 38.2%

  • The Second Amendment Does Guarantee Private Gun Ownership.

    Votes: 63 61.8%
  • Total voters
    102
tyr_13 said:
Yes. How does that make me incorrect? The 2nd Amendment hasn't gone through a repeal by adding another Amendment. I wasn't claiming that no Amendment has.
Click to expand...

I think he interpreted your "has not been employed" as "has never been invoked what-so-ever". I did too, at first.
 
lobosrul said:
YOU may interpret it any way you wish. The founding fathers most certainly did not:

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." - John Adams

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians." - George Mason

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"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

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...
Intelligent statements from men who understood reality and felt no threat from the people as long as the government was doing it's job looking out for the welfare of all it's people.
 
I like the bit where it says "a well regulated militia". Well regulated. *militia*
 
Gawdzilla said:
That just means any member of the militia should be able to outgun Bolivia.
Click to expand...

That's actually closer than when people talk about 'government regulation'.

'Regulated' also means 'trained and drilled' or 'disciplined'.

Damnit, I'm going to have to dig out my Proceedings of the American Continental Congress and other texts.
 
Loss Leader said:
The poll doesn't have enough options.

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment has a sunset clause. It guarantees the right to private gun ownership only so long as a citizen's militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
[...]
Click to expand...

Oh please! You may wish that it has a sunset clause, but it does not. You being a lawyer, and me being NOT a lawyer puts you at an advantage in matters of the law, so please carry-on.
 
WildCat said:
While you pretend the second part doesn't exist, right?
Click to expand...

While you pretend the first part doesn't exist, right? You know, the context.

(ETA - I have no axe to grind in this particular debate, but claiming I ignored the second part of the amendment is a bit disingenuous. I "pretended" no such thing.)
 
Last edited:
Kid Eager said:
While you pretend the first part doesn't exist, right? You know, the context.

(ETA - I have no axe to grind in this particular debate, but claiming I ignored the second part of the amendment is a bit disingenuous. I "pretended" no such thing.)
Click to expand...
I don't pretend the first part doesn't exist. The first part is a collective right, the second part is an individual right.

Now, perhaps you'll be the first person on this forum ever to explain why "the people" doesn't mean "the people" in a way that makes sense. So far people have said "the people" really means "the militia" or "the state" and they wrote "the people" by accident or something.
 
WildCat said:
I don't pretend the first part doesn't exist. The first part is a collective right, the second part is an individual right.

Now, perhaps you'll be the first person on this forum ever to explain why "the people" doesn't mean "the people" in a way that makes sense. So far people have said "the people" really means "the militia" or "the state" and they wrote "the people" by accident or something.
Click to expand...

Look, it's fine that you've already decided what argument you're going to make against some imaginary adversary - it shows commitment and foresight and all that stuff. Meanwhile, I'm left wondering at the relevance to my posts...

Enjoy your thread.
 
WildCat said:
That Bogus paper (couldn't resist), is that the history of the 2nd Amendment THEY don't want you to know?

If that was the "growing consensus" back in 1998 it appears to be growing at a glacial pace.
Click to expand...
And glaciers are retreating now.
 
Kid Eager said:
Look, it's fine that you've already decided what argument you're going to make against some imaginary adversary - it shows commitment and foresight and all that stuff. Meanwhile, I'm left wondering at the relevance to my posts...

Enjoy your thread.
Click to expand...
I see, you can't back up your statement (mine is supported by the Heller decision) and you're going to run away rather than acknowledge there's 2 parts of the 2nd Amendment.
 
SezMe said:
Do any of the Federalist Papers address the 2nd?
Click to expand...

I think so, and in letters. I also think my books from my Rights and Civil Liberties course are buried somewhere in trunk at my mother's house. :/

Several of the state Constitutions which ratified the Bill of Rights also address it specifically, mention it as a right for the people, and contain references to personal self defense. There was an interesting article back from the 90's I think by a gun control advocate that was very persuasive to me when I was in high school that referenced them and chastised other gun control advocates for even trying to make it say something else. I've yet to see a convincing argument otherwise including from the Justices.

One does not need to be against gun control to believe the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for individuals and the states.

Gawdzilla said:
He wasn't, your strawman has no legs.
Click to expand...

What did he say though? Just a fan of militias and the discipline thereof? Wildcat and I disagree on many things about gun control, but it looks like his criticism of Kid Eager's comment is valid. It could be clarified at any time, but it's not been.

I'm trying to phrase this in the least 'attacky' way possible, but I've grown very tired of snarky non-comments on this issue from otherwise good critical thinkers that I'm nit-picking. People should make an argument and stand by it. Making a snarky comment and then not explaining, or defending it is intellectually dishonest. But this topic deserves honest, level-headed discussion. The sniping just makes everyone more defensive, fosters an 'us vs them' attitude, and stifles moving the debate forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom