• 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]

danielpalos said:
How did you reach your understanding from this:
Click to expand...



power of 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;

read the clause, ....it states when the militia of a state is employed in the service of the u.s [federal government]....the congress will provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia....and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

ernst barkmann said:
power of 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;

read the clause, ....it states when the militia of a state is employed in the service of the u.s [federal government]....the congress will provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia....and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Click to expand...

This refers to the Militia of the United States: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,

This refers to federalizing the Militia of the United States: and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.

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

danielpalos said:
Yes, I also noticed you omitted the entire clause: and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States
Click to expand...

You have to be employed by the state. Is this hard for you?
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

scatt said:
You have to be employed by the state. Is this hard for you?
Click to expand...

This refers to the Militia of the United States: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,

This refers to federalizing the Militia of the United States: and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.

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

scatt said:
The militia that is currently employed. Why is this hard?
Click to expand...

It isn't difficult, at all; you just seem to insist on getting it wrong.

This refers to the Militia of the United States: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia," This includes the unorganized militia.

This refers to federalizing the Militia of the United States: "and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." This only includes well regulated militias in federal service.


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

danielpalos said:
Any questions?
Click to expand...

So there are three militias, the population, the state militias, and the federal militia. The first cannot have this applied to them.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
This refers to the Militia of the United States: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,

This refers to federalizing the Militia of the United States: and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.

Any questions?
Click to expand...

yes when the militia of the states are employed in the service of the u.s. by the president........congress has to To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.

since they are in the service of the federal government, congress must appropriate money for these actions, the federal government cannot make the states pay the cost for them, while in federal service.
 
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...

No. It says "the people". The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Federalist said:
No. It says "the people". The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Only One Thing is Specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State; and, our Second Amendment does NOT read thusly;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to acquire and possess Arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

And, it makes all of the difference in the world.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
Only One Thing is Specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State; and, our Second Amendment does NOT read thusly;

And, it makes all of the difference in the world.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But how does that observation deny the fact that the people have a right to keep and bear arms?
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Federalist said:
I totally agree that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But how does that observation deny the fact that the people have a right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...

Did you miss this Part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" You may have noticed it does not say that an Anarchy or Mob is necessary.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
Did you miss this Part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" You may have noticed it does not say that an Anarchy or Mob is necessary.
Click to expand...

No, as I just said, I agree that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

But what does that have to do with the fact that the amendment says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

ernst barkmann said:
yes when the militia of the states are employed in the service of the u.s. by the president........congress has to To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.
Click to expand...

Why are you lying? IT DOES NOT SAY THAT.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Federalist said:
No, as I just said, I agree that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

But what does that have to do with the fact that the amendment says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the meaning of my post? Our Second Amendment says only well regulated militias are necessary, and therefore not to be Infringed in their keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
Did you miss the meaning of my post? Our Second Amendment says only well regulated militias are necessary, and therefore not to be Infringed in their keeping and bearing of Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say ONLY well regulated militias are necessary. There is no word ONLY in the amendment.

Regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms, who would you say they are referring to when they say "the people"?
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Federalist said:
It doesn't say ONLY well regulated militias are necessary. There is no word ONLY in the amendment.

Regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms, who would you say they are referring to when they say "the people"?
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militias are enumerated as necessary.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
Only well regulated militias are enumerated as necessary.
Click to expand...

Haven't we already agreed that the amendment clearly states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state? We agree on this.

However, it also says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Who do you think the founders were referring to when they used the term "the people"?
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Federalist said:
Haven't we already agreed that the amendment clearly states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state? We agree on this.

However, it also says that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Who do you think the founders were referring to when they used the term "the people"?
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militias of Individuals of the People, are necessary to the security of a free State.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
Only well regulated militias of Individuals of the People, are necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...

Then I wonder why they didn't say "the right of the militia".
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

danielpalos said:
Because, no Militia is Not comprised of Individuals of the People. That concept was well understood, back then.
Click to expand...

Yet you still have the problem that they did, in fact, say that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. They did not say the militia.
 
Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Federalist said:
Yet you still have the problem that they did, in fact, say that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. They did not say the militia.
Click to expand...

Only if you omit the first Clause. That is special pleading and a fallacy on its own merit. And, not only that, any fallacy should be considered an appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom