• 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 many firearm owners belong to a well regulated militia?

"On the crafting of the Second Amendment at the Constitutional Convention
It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising.
That is not even close to what the concerns coming out of the Virginia Ratifying Convention were.

Their concerns were all about preventing federal tyranny.
 
Written law supersedes this. Always has.

Your use of the term natural right is problematic. These are not rights in the legal sense and using the term right causes confusion.


You are not getting the principle of the rule of law.


Not to, above.

When a magistrate or some form of legislative assembly formally recognize a principle, like defense of self and others, then it becomes a law.


The right to bear arms became a right when it was codified into law. prior to that it was only a principle.


The framers used considerably more than the natural principle of self defense. They used the history of an oppressive government confiscating weapons to draw upon. We still this. Any time an authoritarian government takes over, its first inclinations are to control speech and private arms

Precedes, as natural rights are neither laws nor written.

Your second point is ridiculous as human beings have been defending themselves even during prehistoric times.

The right to bear arms doesn't become a right because it was codified, which is why colonizers were armed long before 2A.

2A led to Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts, which called for mandatory service, which ironically is a good example of oppression.
 
Precedes, as natural rights are neither laws nor written.

Your second point is ridiculous as human beings have been defending themselves even during prehistoric times.

The right to bear arms doesn't become a right because it was codified, which is why colonizers were armed long before 2A.

2A led to Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts, which called for mandatory service, which ironically is a good example of oppression.
That's exactly what happens.
 
Back
Top Bottom