Can someone argue this logic?

[Patriot123]

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

 

[gutteck]

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

You are 15 years old.
You are a Jew.
You support Zionism.

It is interesting how a young individual like yourself so eagerly defends the establishment.





/

 

[hypnagogue]

This isn't a particularly difficult argument to rebuke. If you look at the usage of the phrase "the people" throughout the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, you'll find that it unanimously refers to individuals and not the States. This is even shown within the 2nd amendment, where it refers to both the State and the people separately.

The correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment would be; In order that the states may remain free and secure they must have the capacity to form militias. To secure that capacity, the right to both own and operate arms are protected for individuals.

You are 15 years old.
You are a Jew.
You support Zionism.

snotty, dumbass responses like this would be a fast track off these boards if I were running this place.

 

[Patriot123]

You are 15 years old.
You are a Jew.
You support Zionism.

It is interesting how a young individual like yourself so eagerly defends the establishment.





/

Defends? Your level of intelligence is really just hilarious. For starters, I was trying to ask anyone if they could help me argue this logic about the second amendment. Second of all, so I see you hate Jews now, huh? Interesting. And your a Christian. So why not pack your bags and go move to Rome? Just wanted to show you how stupid your logic was, there
Oh, and of course. I'm a Zionist. I support the right of Israel to exist. And I "support Zionism?" So I support support the right of Israel to exist? Okay, then... Let me guess, you don't, and you support exiling thousands of Jews into... Nowhere? And having them be slaughtered? Great way to pave the road towards peace

Anyone else who knows a thing or two about second amendment arguments care to explain this to me?

This isn't a particularly difficult argument to rebuke. If you look at the usage of the phrase "the people" throughout the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, you'll find that it unanimously refers to individuals and not the States. This is even shown within the 2nd amendment, where it refers to both the State and the people separately.

The correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment would be; In order that the states may remain free and secure they must have the capacity to form militias. To secure that capacity, the right to both own and operate arms are protected for individuals.

Of course... That never hit me Of course. Thank you so much

 

[Zarxrax]

All right. So I was in this debate with this one person a few days back. Right? About gun laws, and the second amendment, specifically. They brought up the point that the second amendment pertained to militias, and not individuals.

"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."


He argued that it was saying that it gave the right for militias to be armed. Not individuals. He pointed out that "being necessary to the security of a free state," was a detail that was added in, and that it was all one thought. So it was literally, "a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms is the right of the people."

Anyone? Opinions? Thoughts?

I don't see a problem. What is a militia? A militia is the PEOPLE.

 

[Patriot123]

Yes, but the argument the person was trying to form was that the right to bear arms isn't an individual right, but the right of a militia.

 

[gutteck]

snotty, dumbass responses like this would be a fast track off these boards if I were running this place.

If you were running the place it would be hilaryclintonforums.com....

 

[ionlyknowy]

it follows that, each person has a right to bear arms so that they can form a militia.

Ask your friend how a militia can be formed without the people that make up the militia being able to own guns.

Here is the definition of militia

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary[1] citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency; without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:

* Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
* The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

 

[Dr.3D]

A militia is not the National Guard.... so if we wish to form a militia, the people have to have arms. When a militia is formed, everyday people with arms, band together to make a militia. These militias are a safeguard to the freedom of the state. Those who say the National Guard are militias don't understand the idea nor the name of 'National Guard'. The word National is does not reflect anything about a state militia. The president, at will can call in the National Guard as a part of the nations military and thus it does not constitute a state militia.

These being the case, a militia would have to be formed from the citizens of the states they live in and would be a private state army. Letting the government have all the control of all armed forces, is not in the best interests of this nation and certainly not any member state of the union. To be able to protect the United States Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, it is necessary that there be the ability to form militias in each and every state. The national army given orders by the United States Government would not be able to protect the Constitution from the possibility of the said Government being the domestic enemy.

 

[Patriot123]

A militia is not the National Guard.... so if we wish to form a militia, the people have to have arms. When a militia is formed, everyday people with arms, band together to make a militia. These militias are a safeguard to the freedom of the state. Those who say the National Guard are militias don't understand the idea nor the name of 'National Guard'. The word National is does not reflect anything about a state militia. The president, at will can call in the National Guard as a part of the nations military and thus it does not constitute a state militia.

These being the case, a militia would have to be formed from the citizens of the states they live in and would be a private state army. Letting the government have all the control of all armed forces, is not in the best interests of this nation and certainly not any member state of the union. To be able to protect the United States Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, it is necessary that there be the ability to form militias in each and every state. The national army given orders by the United States Government would not be able to protect the Constitution from the possibility of the said Government being the domestic enemy.

But what about individual rights? Yes, it is the right of a militia to bear arms. But what about individuals?

 

[gutteck]

Second of all, so I see you hate Jews now, huh? Interesting.

I don’t hate Jews. I oppose Zionist Jews. Jews that are not Zionist are on my side.

And your a Christian. So why not pack your bags and go move to Rome? Just wanted to show you how stupid your logic was, there

Yes I am a Christian. I never told you to move anywhere.

Oh, and of course. I'm a Zionist. I support the right of Israel to exist. And I "support Zionism?" So I support support the right of Israel to exist? Okay, then... Let me guess, you don't, and you support exiling thousands of Jews into... Nowhere? And having them be slaughtered? Great way to pave the road towards peace

My problem are your Zionist views. I know and many know that Zionism does not mean “right of Israel to exist”.

 

[Dr.3D]

But what about individual rights? Yes, it is the right of a militia to bear arms. But what about individuals?

Individuals are what militias are formed from. People need to practice with their own firearms to maintain the proper level of marksmanship. We can't just call everybody to form a militia and then hand them firearms and expect them to be able to know how to use them properly.

 

[Patriot123]

I don’t hate Jews. I oppose Zionist Jews. Jews that are not Zionist are on my side.



Yes I am a Christian. I never told you to move anywhere.



My problem are your Zionist views. I know and many know that Zionism does not mean “right of Israel to exist”.

1) You oppose Zionist Jews. So again, you support exiling millions of Jews into nowhere for them to be slaughtered by angry Muslims? Nice

2) You implied it

3) ...Zionism is the belief that Israel has the right to exist. You'd better get your facts straight, buddy.

 

[Zarxrax]

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

More quotes: http://www.vtgunsmiths.com/arms/ffquote.html

 

[Patriot123]

Individuals are what militias are formed from. People need to practice with their own firearms to maintain the proper level of marksmanship. We can't just call everybody to form a militia and then hand them firearms and expect them to be able to know how to use them properly.

Well yes, but legally speaking according to what the argument is based off of, it just says militias have a right to bear arms. But then again, the argument which I posted is obviously misconstrued. It's obviously the right of both... Right?

 

[ionlyknowy]

Individuals are what militias are formed from. People need to practice with their own firearms to maintain the proper level of marksmanship. We can't just call everybody to form a militia and then hand them firearms and expect them to be able to know how to use them properly.

every state cannot have a cash of weapons stored away and when something bad happens, the citizens go to this place and take the weapons...

think about when the constitution was written...


Who would be in charge of the weapons cash, the ordinary person..

 

[Dr.3D]

Well yes, but legally speaking according to what the argument is based off of, it just says militias have a right to bear arms. But then again, the argument which I posted is obviously misconstrued. It's obviously the right of both... Right?

The people are the militia. Each and every single person in a state may become a part of the militia at any time should the need arise. So yes, the individual is the militia.

 

[gutteck]

1) You oppose Zionist Jews. So again, you support exiling millions of Jews into nowhere for them to be slaughtered by angry Muslims? Nice

Admitting to being a Zionist should raise the eyebrows the same as admitting being a member of the KKK. Zionism is a form of supremacist philosophy in which Jews are to rule over non Jews.

2) You implied it
.

Where?

 

[Patriot123]

The people are the militia. Each and every single person in a state may become a part of the militia at any time should the need arise. So yes, the individual is the militia.

But then wouldn't the people only be able to bear arms if a militia arises?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, but the argument the person was trying to form was that the right to bear arms isn't an individual right, but the right of a militia.

If you read the federalist and anti-federalist papers, it will become much more clear to you exactly what our Founders meant by those words. They saw ALL Americans as being part of the militia.

The Militia is nothing other than an armed citizenry.