• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Misterveritis said:
I think being the president of a war that was won combined with dying in office has made him stand out.

He was a horrible president. His policies kept the poor poor. Then he gave the poor handouts so they would vote for him. Guess who else is doing the same thing?
Click to expand...

You certainly have a right to your opinion. So do the experts who consistently select FDR as GREAT and that even applies to two different surveys where libertarians hand picked the panel.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

scatt said:
Bias is a hell of a drug.
Click to expand...

And even the sainted libertarians who hand picked their own experts ended up with two surveys of expert opinion ranking FDR as GREAT.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

scatt said:
Except FDR is only better than the worst president ever.
Click to expand...

The experts disagree with you and that includes experts hand picked by libertarians.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

haymarket said:
You certainly have a right to your opinion. So do the experts who consistently select FDR as GREAT and that even applies to two different surveys where libertarians hand picked the panel.
Click to expand...
Did I fail to mention, "I think being the president of a war that was won combined with dying in office has made him stand out"?
Give it another 25 years. The path he has forced this nation down will be completely clear by then.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Misterveritis said:
Did I fail to mention, "I think being the president of a war that was won combined with dying in office has made him stand out"?
Give it another 25 years. The path he has forced this nation down will be completely clear by then.
Click to expand...

25 years is a hell of a long time to see how your predictive powers stand up. How about you simply provide the winning power ball numbers for next weeks drawing right today?
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

haymarket said:
25 years is a hell of a long time to see how your predictive powers stand up. How about you simply provide the winning power ball numbers for next weeks drawing right today?
Click to expand...
It is the way of all history. As we get a bit further away some of the halo effect diminishes.

FDR was among the very worst. I must add Wilson and T. Roosevelt as well.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Only civil Persons who are specifically connected with Militia service, well regulated, enjoy a literal right to not be Infringed in their keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.

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.
Click to expand...
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
Only civil Persons who are specifically connected with Militia service, well regulated, enjoy a literal right to not be Infringed in their keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Militia means the population, or all males 17-45. You can pick.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
Only civil Persons who are specifically connected with Militia service, well regulated, enjoy a literal right to not be Infringed in their keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

wrong....the founders state well regulated, is a group of people who are not a rabble.....they are orderly, and disciplined.


William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 125--26 1829 (2d ed.)

The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

ernst barkmann said:
wrong....the founders state well regulated, is a group of people who are not a rabble.....they are orderly, and disciplined.
Click to expand...

Nope; our federal Congress is delegated the social Power to define, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
Nope; our federal Congress is delegated the social Power to define, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.
Click to expand...

For those that are currently state employed. Calm down.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
Nope; our federal Congress is delegated the social Power to define, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.
Click to expand...

where is this power?

nothing in that clause about regulating firearms.

it states if the federal government is going to use militia of a state.... it has to paid for their arming, organizing among things..it cannot make the state pay for federal use
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

ernst barkmann said:
where is this power?

nothing in that clause about regulating firearms.

it states if the federal government is going to use militia of a state.... it has to paid for their arming, organizing among things..it cannot make the state pay for federal use
Click to expand...

It is in Article 1, Section 8:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...

The security of a free State is a States' right, along with the traditional police power.

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Click to expand...
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
Only, Well Regulated Militias are specifically enumerated as being necessary to the security of our free States.
Click to expand...

A well armed population is necessary, yes.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
It is in Article 1, Section 8:



The security of a free State is a States' right, along with the traditional police power.
Click to expand...


nothing there about regulation at all.

that clause states that if the militia is called into service of the united states, the u.s. will provide those things, such as arming them, organizing them, training them.

because they are in the service of the u.s., the state does not have to pay that cost.


states constitutions have become second bananas to the bill of rights since the post civil war USSC decision
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

ernst barkmann said:
nothing there about regulation at all.

that clause states that if the militia is called into service of the united states, the u.s. will provide those things, such as arming them, organizing them, training them.

because they are in the service of the u.s., the state does not have to pay that cost.


states constitutions have become second bananas to the bill of rights since the post civil war USSC decision
Click to expand...

How did you reach your understanding from this:

Article 1, Section 8 - Powers delegated to our federal Congress
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom