Do You Support the 2nd Amendment or Not?

[braindrain]

The prefatory clause means that there must be a pool of citizens armed and available to form a militia as required. At a time when the minimal standing army could take weeks to arrive, then local militias were vital in maintaining public order.

Sorry but a constitutional amendment doesn’t just magically go away because you don’t think it is needed anymore.

 

[The Mark]

I support the 2nd Amendment, but the text needs to be updated.

After the clause
"the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

should be two more words in caps: NO ECXEPTIONS.

These two words would reinforce the words "shall not be infringed", and explicitly prohibit lawmakers from passing "gun control" regulations and restrictions which in reality ARE infringements.

It would empower SCOTUS to summarily strike down any new laws which infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. . . . ALL of them.

A lot of the 2nd amendment's meaning hinges on the definition the terms used.

As I understand it, at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, the term "arms" was essentially weapons or armor used for offense or defense, respectively.
I don't think that definition is currently applied though. Or at least, there are plenty of exceptions.
Machine guns being illegal unless key parts in them were manufactured before a certain point in time, for example. Or any number of other examples.

Depending how you define your terms, you could technically claim that a fully operational modern tank qualifies as both a weapon used for offense and armor used for defense. Yet the cost and a bunch of regulations and laws around owning one makes it very unlikely that many will.

Edit: And that's not even getting into defining terms like "the People", or "keep and bear", or the ever-discussed "well-regulated militia" debate.

 

[SkyChief]

A lot of the 2nd amendment's meaning hinges on the definition the terms used.

As I understand it, at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, the term "arms" was essentially weapons or armor used for offense or defense, respectively.

Indeed, it was.

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." - Samuel Adams

I don't think that definition is currently applied though. Or at least, there are plenty of exceptions.
Machine guns being illegal unless key parts in them were manufactured before a certain point in time, for example. Or any number of other examples.

Depending how you define your terms, you could technically claim that a fully operational modern tank qualifies as both a weapon used for offense and armor used for defense. Yet the cost and a bunch of regulations and laws around owning one makes it very unlikely that many will.

That argument is known as a reductio ad absurdum.

Edit: And that's not even getting into defining terms like "the People", or "keep and bear", or the ever-discussed "well-regulated militia" debate.

The authors of the second Amendment were crystal clear that the citizens had the natural right to keep and bear arms. That's why they explicitly said that the Right "shall not be infringed".

 

[Sven Karma]

This doesn't make a lot of sense how much when the militia needs to muster are they going to get fire arms?

What are you afraid of

(1) Never heard of an arsenal, huh.

(2) I'm not so afraid of going to buy a loaf of bread from the shops that I'm arguing I need to carry a gun in order to do so, but you do you.

 

[CLAX1911]

(1) Never heard of an arsenal, huh.

That would be unnecessary if people have homes. You're the centralized place would make it difficult for the militia to be armed so that's not a good solution there's a reason why we don't do it that way.

(2) I'm not so afraid of going to buy a loaf of bread from the shops

Then what difference does it make if someone has a gun on them?

that I'm arguing I need to carry a gun in order to do so, but you do you.

That's all I ever do.

 

[CLAX1911]

All these maniacs with guns, of course you need one!

Better only The Maniacs have them?

 

[CLAX1911]

The prefatory clause means that there must be a pool of citizens armed and available to form a militia as required.

They are.

At a time when the minimal standing army could take weeks to arrive, then local militias were vital in maintaining public order.

Yeah it's the militia doesn't serve as much of a purpose now as it did then but it's still necessary for the security of the free state that hasn't changed

 

[mrjurrs]

I did tell you were wrong about what you said. Both about your claims of what you think the founders thought, and about the 2nd being about the militia and not individuals. Because you were.

And I backed it up by the words of the person who wrote the actual 2nd amendment.


The prefatory clause of the 2nd gives you the reason that the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
Not sure how you think that helps you.

Nope. None of the Constitution is one man's opinion.
The 2nd is about the militia.
The individual right to bear (not bare) arms is an Article 3 construct. As easily removed as abortion rights were.

 

[mrjurrs]

Indeed, it was.

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." - Samuel Adams

That argument is known as a reductio ad absurdum.

The authors of the second Amendment were crystal clear that the citizens had the natural right to keep and bear arms. That's why they explicitly said that the Right "shall not be infringed".

None of your responses are accurate.

Sam Adams was a patriot, he was not a contributor to the writing of the Constitution, though he did help to broker the MA Compromise.

No more ridiculous than arguing over M16 style weapons in civilian hands.

Name me one right that is absolute. Just one.

 

[natman]

Not the way the NRA has bastardized the meaning. Who here wants to try to make people believe the founding fathers envisioned the firearms of today. I would be fine if all gun owners owned a musket and a flintlock pistol. It would seriously cut down on mass shootings.

This was explained to you in 2022. https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...ceptable-to-you.485971/page-4#post-1076242439

I can't believe people are still trotting out the "only muskets" argument. First, it only makes sense if you think that the First Amendment applies to documents written with a quill pen.

Second, the Supreme Court laid it to rest in 2008:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. "DC v Heller, page 8

So, what part of the above do you still not understand?

 

[bongsaway]

This was explained to you in 2022. https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...ceptable-to-you.485971/page-4#post-1076242439

I can't believe people are still trotting out the "only muskets" argument. First, it only makes sense if you think that the First Amendment applies to documents written with a quill pen.

Second, the Supreme Court laid it to rest in 2008:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. "DC v Heller, page 8

So, what part of the above do you still not understand?

So folks like justice Thomas are talking out their asses when they say they are originalists of the constitution?

 

[natman]

So folks like justice Thomas are talking out their asses when they say they are originalists of the constitution?

No, it means that you don't understand the meaning of the term "originalist". It does NOT mean that nothing ever changes. It means:

ori·gin·al·ism
[əˈrɪdʒənəlɪz(ə)m]
noun
a type of judicial interpretation of a constitution (especially the US Constitution) that aims to follow how it would have been understood or was intended to be understood at the time it was written.

 

[SkyChief]

None of your responses are accurate.

The responses are100% accurate, and true. The Founders wanted ALL citizens to have the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. This right (the right to self-preservation, self defense) is a "natural" right, and we all have it - regardless of whether or not the government acknowledges it.

Sam Adams was a patriot, he was not a contributor to the writing of the Constitution, though he did help to broker the MA Compromise.

Red Herring noted, and appreciated.

No more ridiculous than arguing over M16 style weapons in civilian hands.

Yes it is. The founding fathers didn't acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms so citizens would hoard ARTILLERY PIECES on their property - they intended for civilians to have exactly the same arms that the standing army had, and at that time, the standard firearm was the muzzle-loaded, smooth-bore flintlock. So naturally, that was what the colonists used as their choice for firearm.

Today, the Colt AR-15 A4 is the standard-issue firearm to combat soldiers, so naturally citizens have the right to keep and bear the equivalent firearm. ( the civilian AR-15 is semi-auto, and the Military A4 is fully auto)

Name me one right that is absolute. Just one.

The second Amendment is absolute. The four words at the end of the Amendment (shall not be infringed) make it absolute.

It is the ONLY Amendment in the constitution which has those four words. That's a hint about how important it was to the Founders that lawmakers could never infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

And it worked perfectly until 1934 when the National Firearm Act was passed. This was the first federal firearm infringement that threw the door open wide for other further infringements. And as you know many infringements followed. In fact, EVERY gun-control statute is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms - - at least on some level.

 

[mrjurrs]

The responses are100% accurate, and true. The Founders wanted ALL citizens to have the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. This right (the right to self-preservation, self defense) is a "natural" right, and we all have it - regardless of whether or not the government acknowledges it.


Red Herring noted, and appreciated.

Yes it is. The founding fathers didn't acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms so citizens would hoard ARTILLERY PIECES on their property - they intended for civilians to have exactly the same arms that the standing army had, and at that time, the standard firearm was the muzzle-loaded, smooth-bore flintlock. So naturally, that was what the colonists used as their choice for firearm.

Today, the Colt AR-15 A4 is the standard-issue firearm to combat soldiers, so naturally citizens have the right to keep and bear the equivalent firearm. ( the civilian AR-15 is semi-auto, and the Military A4 is fully auto)

The second Amendment is absolute. The four words at the end of the Amendment (shall not be infringed) make it absolute.

It is the ONLY Amendment in the constitution which has those four words. That's a hint about how important it was to the Founders that lawmakers could never infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

And it worked perfectly until 1934 when the National Firearm Act was passed. This was the first federal firearm infringement that threw the door open wide for other further infringements. And as you know many infringements followed. In fact, EVERY gun-control statute is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms - - at least on some level.

They wanted it so much and it was so important to them that it wasn't included in the Constitution, just added in the Amendments? And it wasn't even the first Amendment?

Natural rights in the Constitution? Source your claim.

Itrrelevant. How does a point about the topic and a figure you introduced qualify as a red herring?

That was not standard, it was almost only. And where in your beloved 2nd does it say anything about 'artillery not included'? Standard originalism bullshite.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nope. None of the Constitution is one man's opinion.
The 2nd is about the militia.

I'm sorry you think that it's probably why you struggle with this.

The individual right to bear (not bare) arms is an Article 3 construct. As easily removed as abortion rights were.

So since when are the people not individuals why does it flip back and forth depending on what amendment you're talking about?

 

[CLAX1911]

A lot of the 2nd amendment's meaning hinges on the definition the terms used.

Specifically the word right and the word people.

As I understand it, at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, the term "arms" was essentially weapons or armor used for offense or defense, respectively.
I don't think that definition is currently applied though. Or at least, there are plenty of exceptions.
Machine guns being illegal unless key parts in them were manufactured before a certain point in time, for example. Or any number of other examples.

Machine guns or fully automatic firearms or banned is a compromise. And the second that compromise was made and they started pushing to go further.

Depending how you define your terms, you could technically claim that a fully operational modern tank qualifies as both a weapon used for offense and armor used for defense. Yet the cost and a bunch of regulations and laws around owning one makes it very unlikely that many will.

Technically a tank is a truck and it's not illegal to own those especially if they're not road vehicles

Edit: And that's not even getting into defining terms like "the People", or "keep and bear", or the ever-discussed "well-regulated militia" debate.

Right you're not going to get to defining the meaning out of the words I don't think people are going to accept it.

 

[bongsaway]

No, it means that you don't understand the meaning of the term "originalist". It does NOT mean that nothing ever changes. It means:

ori·gin·al·ism
[əˈrɪdʒənəlɪz(ə)m]
noun
a type of judicial interpretation of a constitution (especially the US Constitution) that aims to follow how it would have been understood or was intended to be understood at the time it was written.

At the time the constitution was written muskets were being used. So an originalists should argue muskests should still be used.There is a huge gap between being understood and intended to be understood.

 

[CLAX1911]

At the time the constitution was written muskets were being used.
So an originalists should argue muskests should still be used.There is a huge gap between being understood and intended to be understood.

That should also apply to the First amendment too right so you shouldn't be entitled to any privacy or any free speech on your cell phones because they didn't have those when the Constitution was written.

Also a police officer it's going to be allowed without a warrant to look through your computers and through your cell phone and your vehicle because those weren't around when the fourth amendment was written.

 

[bongsaway]

That should also apply to the First amendment too right so you shouldn't be entitled to any privacy or any free speech on your cell phones because they didn't have those when the Constitution was written.

Also a police officer it's going to be allowed without a warrant to look through your computers and through your cell phone and your vehicle because those weren't around when the fourth amendment was written.

I'm not an originalist, ask Thomas.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'm not an originalist, ask Thomas.

Who is Thomas?

 

[RF667799]

I'm not an originalist, ask Thomas.

Then why are you trying to argue on that basis. mistaken though it is?

 

[RF667799]

At the time the constitution was written muskets were being used. So an originalists should argue muskests should still be used.There is a huge gap between being understood and intended to be understood.

Muskets can still be used. So can semiautomatic magazine fed rifles. Like modern sporting rifles. Or the government surplus M1 Carbines that were sold by the tens of thousands to civilians.

 

[bongsaway]

Who is Thomas?

The supreme court justice who receives outrageous gifts from his rich friends, Clarence Thomas.

 

[bongsaway]

Muskets can still be used. So can semiautomatic magazine fed rifles. Like modern sporting rifles. Or the government surplus M1 Carbines that were sold by the tens of thousands to civilians.

You are twisting the meaning of originalists.

 

[RF667799]

You are twisting the meaning of originalists.

You're not making much sense.