• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats mount gun control filibuster

You talk about reading the words as they were written and not using any hidden intent, yet you clearly speculate that the founding fathers intended the words to be only from needing a military to protect themselves from England.

'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.'

That clearly states that armed civilians are necessary to the security of a free state. There is no variable stated about a specific time period, nor about a specific threat (Britain). There is no requirement to prove the point valid like you suggest, and even if there was it has been clearly shown time after time that America still faces both a foreign threat, but more specifically a domestic threat that can and does effect individuals. People have a right not to be at the mercy of others.

While I can agree we need common sense gun laws, and that TurtleDude is...well. I won't agree that the second amendment means something it doesn't, nor that people don't have the right to bear arms.

I speculated nothing (imo)...I stated the obvious and gave historical reference/background.

'mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/Submit
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.'


https://www.google.ca/search?newwin....1.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.1.132.kyTSPM6EIC8

It is right there...a militia is 'to supplement a regular army'. It is NOT to defend people from the government since the government IS the one with the army (hence, the militia).

'free State' clearly means the individual states of the union. "State' is capitalized...what else could it realistically mean...NOTHING (no matter what others speculate).

So, the State needs a Militia to keep it free. To do that, it's citizens (in 1770's America) must have guns or there is virtually no militia. Now, with America's GINORMOUS military - they do not (but that is another story).

That is not interpreting...that is stating the obvious...based SOLELY on the actual words of the 2'nd Amendment.

If someone says, 'let's go for a drive'. It is obvious that they mean outside. So if I say he/she meant to go outside to do it, that is not interpreting as much as stating the obvious.


The 2'nd Amendment clearly and obviously refers to the government's ability to raise a militia to defend it and thusly their citizens must be allowed to own guns. It has (and says) NOTHING to do with protecting your home or protecting individuals from 'the State'.

No offense, but it is ridiculously obvious...it states it in black and white. I should not even need to explain it.

The PRIMARY reason (imo) I do is because gun lovers (which I am guessing you might not be - not sure) do not like the obvious because the obvious might not allow them to have access to as many guns as they wish. So they start spinning it or guessing what the Founding Fathers 'really' meant or what some biased yahoo on the SCOTUS thinks (who happens to agree with him/her).


Again, no offense, but I am not getting into some long, drawn out discussion on this. You should know that they usually end up going nowhere around here.

You don't like the way I see the 2'nd Amendment...fine.

But you have almost zero chance of changing my mind on it (since it is SO INCREDIBLY obvious to me) that further discussion on this would be pointless.


Though I appreciate you staying civil - darn rare when 'guns' comes up around here (or almost anywhere in America).
 
Last edited:
A) IMO, you are a gun loonie, no offense. You are obviously completely obsessed with gun rights and trying to reason with you on this subject is COMPLETELY impossible.
Me? I don't give a **** either way. I have little/no bias. I like guns but I don't love 'em.

B) you keep talking about what was 'intended'. I don't give a flying fadoo about what you/SCOTUS think was 'intended'. All/many of you gun lovers say over and over is 'intention' because that is all you have.

'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.'

It is ridiculously obvious what it meant...that since back then the military was militia based, the masses HAD to have arms or the military would be much weaker.
That is what it says and that is that. It falls into the 'DUH' category.

I do not even begin to care what you/others think was 'intended'. All I care about is what was written.

Jeez...when I read your post, I assumed you might have something more then lame, gun lovers' 'what the founding fathers meant' crap on this.
But no.

The 2'nd Amendment is crystal clear. You are clearly obsessed (Imo) about gun rights so you spin it to try and defend your position.

Maybe others fall for that crap...I don't.

Intent means NOTHING to me. The written word means everything.


P.S. save your juvenile bullying tactics for someone else. You either speak to me as an equal and with the respect a fellow human deserves or you will be ignored. Life is far too short to put up with that nonsense from faceless nobodies on chat forums.
I find it so cowardly when people on a chat forum get all uppity knowing they can hide behind their computer screens.
You seem intelligent (though a tad hyper), so I am taking the time to explain this to you - usually I don't bother.
Others take your condescension...fine. You're delusional if you think I will.


We are done here on this.

Good day.

yes.. the written words are very important.... for instance, the operative clause " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

the amendment count be written as " milk does the body good, as it provides calcium for your bones, the right of the people to keep and bar arms shall not be infringed"... and it would have the same exact practical meaning as the way it's written now.

the militia clause is not a limitation on the rights whatsoever,it's but 1 important reason for the rights to exist and be protected...more importantly, it does NOT exempt any other reasons for the right to exist or be protected.
 
It is time for Democrats to stop calling themselves liberal.
There is nothing liberal about suspending civil rights for suspects. SUSPECTS???!!!

it's just another case of so-called liberals being anything but liberal on an issue.... it's quite common anymore.
 
All sensible laws are already on the books.

and far too many that aren't so sensible as well

but meh, folks are clamoring for a way to control something they have no control over.....the minds and actions of people who do harm.
 
I speculated nothing (imo)...I stated the obvious and gave historical reference/background.

'mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/Submit
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.'


https://www.google.ca/search?newwin....1.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.1.132.kyTSPM6EIC8

It is right there...a militia is 'to supplement a regular army'. It is NOT to defend people from the government since the government IS the one with the army (hence, the militia).

'free State' clearly means the individual states of the union. "State' is capitalized...what else could it realistically mean...NOTHING (no matter what others speculate).

So, the State needs a Militia to keep it free. To do that, it's citizens (in 1770's America) must have guns or there is virtually no militia.

That is not interpreting...that is stating the obvious...based SOLELY on the actual words of the 2'nd Amendment.

If someone says, 'let's go for a drive'. It is obvious that they mean outside. So if I say he/she meant to go outside to do it, that is not interpreting as much as stating the obvious.


The 2'nd Amendment clearly and obviously refers to the government's ability to raise a militia to defend it and thusly their citizens must be allowed to own guns. It has (and says) NOTHING to do with protecting your home or protecting individuals from 'the State'.

No offense, but it is ridiculously obvious...it states it in black and white. I should not even need to explain it.

The PRIMARY reason (imo) I do is because gun lovers (which I am guessing you might not be - not sure) do not like the obvious because the obvious might not allow them to have access to as many guns as they wish. So they start spinning it or guessing what the Founding Fathers 'really' meant or what some biased yahoo on the SCOTUS thinks (who happens to agree with him/her).


Again, no offense, but I am not getting into some long, drawn out discussion on this. You should know that they usually end up going nowhere around here.

You don't like the way I see the 2'nd Amendment...fine.

But you have almost zero chance of changing my mind on it (since it is SO INCREDIBLY obvious to me) that further discussion on this would be pointless.


Though I appreciate you staying civil - darn rare when 'guns' comes up around here (or almost anywhere in America).

It is ridiculously obvious what it meant...that since back then the military was militia based, the masses HAD to have arms or the military would be much weaker.
That is what it says and that is that. It falls into the 'DUH' category.


Unless you can cite the part where that reasoning is given to support the second amendment, then yes my friend, it is complete 100% speculation on your part by the very definition of the word.

I didn't say we needed guns to protect ourselves from the government, so that statement is irrelevant. The constitution also does not list any specific threats, just that the threat of civilians not having the right to bear arms is a threat to a free state.

And no 'state' in this instance does not refer to the individual states, it refers to the nation as all of the federal rights granted by the BoR does.

So, the State needs a Militia to keep it free. To do that, it's citizens (in 1770's America) must have guns or there is virtually no militia.

I agree it does say that, minus the 1770's America part. Nowhere in the constitution is it limited by a specific threat or time period. That is pure speculation of the cause of having such a law on your part, and subjective thinking of why it's no longer also viable on your part as well.

Saying something you think is obvious doesn't make it obvious, and certainly isn't when it's presumptuous in nature. Once again the Constitution did not say we have a right to bear arms because of Native Americans, or Brits, or the gritty 18th century lifestyle. Just like it doesn't say we have the right to bear arms in 21st century America with burglars, terrorists, mass-murderers, serial killers, and gang-members. It simply states we have the right to bear arms, period.

I agree, it does say that, therefore people still have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and the nation (one in the same) from foreign and domestic threats when needed.


(1)
 
It's pretty obvious what the founding fathers meant (in words), and it's pretty obvious you don't agree and are making insinuations that have no basis. I understand that you don't agree, but you have to understand me, most people, and the English language don't agree with you either and that won't change because you 'think people thought this way'. I do agree with your point on the unhealthy obsession people in America have with guns, and like I said, even though I support the second amendment that doesn't refrain me from believing common sense gun laws have to prevail. The thing is even though rights are guaranteed, they can also be limited to protect others from those that abuse that freedom.

(2)
 
It is time for Democrats to stop calling themselves liberal.
There is nothing liberal about suspending civil rights for suspects. SUSPECTS???!!!

This right here
 
Back
Top Bottom