• 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!

Is there anyone here that believes the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment so that America would be the shooting gallery it is today?

I guess we can have this conversation for the umpteenth time. It is well established that today's NRA interpretations of the intention behind the 2nd Amendment are not entirely what the founders thought about when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Plenty of Federalist Papers entries on this, plenty of quotes from the period, all suggest the duty and right to be armed as a means to being free. All true. However context matters, what they were talking about was the mechanisms of rule in various European nations at the time. Standing armies under effectively, if not literally, royalty was their context of not wanting here. Free, armed, and militia was the context at the time.

No where in the thinking was the concept of turning inner cities and schools into shooting galleries.

In the defense of our founders, no one back then could have envisioned what we see today. Militarization of law enforcement, the concept of leading the planet in arrests and incarceration rates per capita. Business models, technology, and investment that profits by allowing for such rapid capability to harm many in a short period of time. Criminal enterprise that has great profit on supplying the demand for all that government outlaws in some regard.

No founder would be proud of where we are.

One of the wisest things the founders did was realize the Constitution would need to be changed over the course of history. And we've done that several times. Looks like we should be revisiting that effort instead of relying on the chip away intentions of the left going up against the absolute extremism of the NRA.
 
Too lazy to look for it now, but somewhere online, one can find the Annals that record the proceedings of past congressional activity. You're not going to find discussion about personal self-defense or recreational sport hunting or whatever in that discussion/debate. The main concern in drafting that amendment was making sure that all the states had the means to defend themselves and their people, and the fledgling nation. Pennsylvania, for example, had a Quaker pacifist constitution, which meant that it didn't really have a standing militia. Some states at the time had not repaid their debts from the Revolution and there was a concern that the US, in its infancy, was vulnerable prey to foreign powers that might want to reassert their presence.

I'm not saying there exists no constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but I don't think that's what the 2nd Amendment was really about. I do think that between the 2nd and, say, the 9th Amendments, there probably is some basic right of lawful firearms ownership, but the Bill of Rights was never meant to preclude state and even federal powers from enacting legislation that promotes public safety and order (more of a state role than a federal role, in my view).
Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.

And seeing as we have numerous quotes from the founding fathers talking about the importance of Americans having the right to own firearms I think you are going to have a hard time proving your claim.

But can you answer a question for me. What do you think the term the people means. And do you think it means something different when used in the first amendment then it does in the 2nd.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.

That's fine - I don't really care at this point. Sometimes the meanings of amendments can change over time simply because people alive today want them to change. Whether everyone wants that is another question, but it's moot. I'm just pointing out what the 2nd Amendment originally meant, which isn't what it means today.

But can you answer a question for me. What do you think the term the people means.

All people in a general sense. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a collective right to protect themselves against a tyrant, or to help put down an insurrection or other disturbance. There's something about a well-organized militia being necessary to defend a free state, but firearms rights extremists conveniently ignore that phrase.

And do you think it means something different when used in the first amendment then it does in the 2nd.

Yes, it does mean something different than in the first because whereas there is a context (I'd call it a condition, really) expressed in the 2nd Amendment (a well-regulated militia), there is no such condition mentioned in the First.
 
That's fine - I don't really care at this point. Sometimes the meanings of amendments can change over time simply because people alive today want them to change. Whether everyone wants that is another question, but it's moot. I'm just pointing out what the 2nd Amendment originally meant, which isn't what it means today.



All people in a general sense. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a collective right to protect themselves against a tyrant, or to help put down an insurrection or other disturbance. There's something about a well-organized militia being necessary to defend a free state, but firearms rights extremists conveniently ignore that phrase.



Yes, it does mean something different than in the first because whereas there is a context (I'd call it a condition, really) expressed in the 2nd Amendment (a well-regulated militia), there is no such condition mentioned in the First.
But that’s just it. You are not pointing that out. You are just giving your opinion, backed by nothing.

That you have to add words to the amendment that are not there says a lot.
There is no such thing as a collective right. Individuals have rights.

And the words from the people who actually wrote the constitution disagree with your “interpretation”
But please explain why you seem to think that the founders used the words the people to mean one thing in one amendment and something different in another. Should be rather interesting to see you explain that.


Oh that’s right I noticed that you edited out the part of my post talking about all the numerous quotes we have from the people that wrote the constitution supporting my view and not yours. I wonder why you did that.



You keep making this claim but have nothing but your opinion to back it up. That should tell you something.
 
It is the right and Trump who are openly lusting for such power when they turn the military against the people.

Ohhh, look at you lie.

Do Stalinists get some sort of reward for the most absurd and outrageous lies.

Joe Biden turned the military against the American people.

1750340074250.webp
 
The right to peaceful assembly must magically appear when in proximity to at least one other person.

The 1st has been rewritten to serve the party, it's now "the right to burn, loot, murder, and rape shall not be infringed for democrat party members. Assembly by the opposition is prohibited even when peaceful."
 
But that’s just it. You are not pointing that out. You are just giving your opinion, backed by nothing.

It is not backed by nothing.

What I am saying is fact: There's no mention of these so-called individual freedoms in the discussions about 2A when the original Congress discussed it in the summer of 1789. I'm well aware that there are passages in the Federalist papers and other sources that would appear, when snipped out of congress, to argue to the contrary, but the language of the Second Amendment has some very obvious ambiguity - on purpose.

That you have to add words to the amendment that are not there says a lot.

FFS, I didn't add words to the amendment. You asked me what I thought the word people meant, and I told you (people is plural, by the way).

There is no such thing as a collective right.

Sure there is. States have rights under the 10th Amendment, for example. What are States if not a jurisdiction of people?

And the words from the people who actually wrote the constitution disagree with your “interpretation”

The people in the First Congress may not have written the Amendment, but they formed a committee that came up with the final phrasing and that phrasing was then passed by congress as a proposed amendment ( along with the other 9), and these were later ratified by the states.

Oh that’s right I noticed that you edited out the part of my post talking about all the numerous quotes we have from the people that wrote the constitution supporting my view and not yours. I wonder why you did that.

I didn't edit anything. I respond to whatever I feel like responding to, especially when I've read the same copy/paste nonsense many times before.

You keep making this claim but have nothing but your opinion to back it up. That should tell you something.

I just don't feel obligated to scan the Archives to prove it every time we have one of these threads because I value my time more than winning every debate.
 
Last edited:
No, they decided on a very limited case in Washington D.C. regarding the right to own a gun and keep it in your home.
Nope. It’s not limited.
But they didn’t say that gun ownership couldn’t be regulated in some way, just that the D.C. regulation went too far. They didn’t make any definitive statement on the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment and acknowledged the right was not an absolute one.
You should probably read the ruling.
 
Is much violence caused by non-violent people? Isnt the question valid...why are they violent? What caused that?
Very, very few human beings are non-violent, because violence is embedded not only in our DNA but in the DNA of most animal species. Here's a good article to start with -
INTRASPECIFIC AGGRESSION
 
It is not backed by nothing.

What I am saying is fact: There's no mention of these so-called individual freedoms in the discussions about 2A when the original Congress discussed it in the summer of 1789. I'm well aware that there are passages in the Federalist papers and other sources that would appear, when snipped out of congress, to argue to the contrary, but the language of the Second Amendment has some very obvious ambiguity - on purpose.

I meant 'context'.

That's what I get for posting before finishing my second amendment, er, cup of coffee.
 
It is not backed by nothing.

But what I am saying is fact: There's no mention of these so-called individual freedoms in the discussions about 2A when the original Congress discussed it in the summer of 1789. I'm well aware that there are passages in the Federalist papers and other sources that would appear, when snipped out of congress, to argue to the contrary, but the language of the Second Amendment has some very obvious ambiguity - on purpose.



FFS, I didn't add words to the amendment. You asked me what I thought the word people meant, and I told you (people is plural, by the way).



Sure there is. States have rights under the 10th Amendment, for example. What are States if not a jurisdiction of people?



The people in the First Congress may not have written the Amendment, but they formed a committee that came up with the final phrasing and that phrasing was then passed by congress as a proposed amendment ( along with the other 9), and these were later ratified by the states.



I didn't edit anything. I respond to whatever I feel like responding to, especially when I've read the same copy/paste nonsense many times before.



I just don't feel obligated to scan the Archives to prove it every time we have one of these threads because I value my time more than winning every debate.
Really because nothing is exactly what you have provided to back up your claim.

Claiming things were not discussed when we have the written words of the people who wrote the constitution is about as dishonest as it gets. And yes there did discuss individual freedoms. It was right there when they talked about the people. That’s what that term means. The only ambiguity is the one gun control zealots create by pretending to not understand simple English.

States are not people. That this needs to be explained to you is rather painful. And because you seem to not understand this the constitution sets limits the power of the government. Not the people.

That is simply a lie. But please tell me how the rest of our rights work as collective rights. How about the 1st amendment work as a collective right. Or the fourth

Yes when you deleted parts of my post that is known as editing. It is what it is. Lying won’t change that fact.

You have never proved it once. Because it is made up bs. And I hate to tell you this but the well I proved it in the past, a past I can’t link to or provide, is about as meaningless as just saying well it’s true because I want it to be true.
 
I meant 'context'.

That's what I get for posting before finishing my second amendment, er, cup of coffee.
Please tell me what is the context that was removed to make these quotes not destroy your argument.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson,

I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison


This should be good for a laugh.
 
Really because nothing is exactly what you have provided to back up your claim.

Claiming things were not discussed when we have the written words of the people who wrote the constitution is about as dishonest as it gets. And yes there did discuss individual freedoms. It was right there when they talked about the people. That’s what that term means. The only ambiguity is the one gun control zealots create by pretending to not understand simple English.

States are not people. That this needs to be explained to you is rather painful. And because you seem to not understand this the constitution sets limits the power of the government. Not the people.

That is simply a lie. But please tell me how the rest of our rights work as collective rights. How about the 1st amendment work as a collective right. Or the fourth

Yes when you deleted parts of my post that is known as editing. It is what it is. Lying won’t change that fact.

You have never proved it once. Because it is made up bs. And I hate to tell you this but the well I proved it in the past, a past I can’t link to or provide, is about as meaningless as just saying well it’s true because I want it to be true.

Aaaand we're done. I didn't resort to ad hominem attacks and made my positions clear.
 
Very, very few human beings are non-violent, because violence is embedded not only in our DNA but in the DNA of most animal species. Here's a good article to start with -
INTRASPECIFIC AGGRESSION

Well we need to be concerned with the US. We are more violent than most other western first world countries. And as I've posted a couple of times recently, males are responsible for ~90% of violent crime in the US (FBI data.)

We need to figure out why/how we are producing so many males that cannot handle their feelings and control their anger (see domestic abuse, road rage, mass shootings, etc) and blame everyone else for their problems and we need to work on fixing the socio-economic conditions that encourage crime.

So what needs to be fixed here? Society or tools? They dont have to be mutually exclusive but it doesnt make sense to ignore one or the other either. Other countries manage their "intraspecific aggression" better than we do. How can we achieve this?
 
I guess we can have this conversation for the umpteenth time. It is well established that today's NRA interpretations of the intention behind the 2nd Amendment are not entirely what the founders thought about when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Plenty of Federalist Papers entries on this, plenty of quotes from the period, all suggest the duty and right to be armed as a means to being free. All true. However context matters, what they were talking about was the mechanisms of rule in various European nations at the time. Standing armies under effectively, if not literally, royalty was their context of not wanting here. Free, armed, and militia was the context at the time.

No where in the thinking was the concept of turning inner cities and schools into shooting galleries.
No point can the second amendment be interpreted to just you can just murder whoever you want whenever you want so the second amendment can't possibly have a turn the country into a shooting gallery
In the defense of our founders, no one back then could have envisioned what we see today. Militarization of law enforcement,
I think militarizing the police department would have made them more King on having the most state-of-the-art firearms.
the concept of leading the planet in arrests and incarceration rates per capita. Business models, technology, and investment that profits by allowing for such rapid capability to harm many in a short period of time. Criminal enterprise that has great profit on supplying the demand for all that government outlaws in some regard.
These are all good reasons for the second amendment to exist
No founder would be proud of where we are.
I think that would predominantly be because of income tax
One of the wisest things the founders did was realize the Constitution would need to be changed over the course of history. And we've done that several times. Looks like we should be revisiting that effort instead of relying on the chip away intentions of the left going up against the absolute extremism of the NRA.
Then run a campaign on it and see how fast it gets poisoned by the fact that you want to take people's rights away.

Imagine a politician coming up in saying "you know what people you just have too many freedoms you know what you need you need to be able to be shot at with no recourse so vote for me and I'll make sure that the police in the criminals can shoot and kill you and you can do nothing about it" that's going to go over well.
 
Well it's not unlimited so there's that.

No the purpose of the second amendment so that we can shoot the government should we need to.
On your first point, the written opinion of the Heller decision states that. I’m pretty sure that Scalia wrote on behalf of the majority and actually said that.

On your second point, you can find that the Founders and Framers did not use that as a reason and that can be seen in their writings, personal journals and letters to each other and in various libraries like presidential libraries that can provide you with digital copies.

Also, you are going to have to justify why the government uses militias that the 2nd allowed private ownership of firearms for people to also use for formation of militias as well as personal use to put down and kill their fellow citizens.

What’s your evidence to refute known and documented history?
 
On your first point, the written opinion of the Heller decision states that.
There are quite a few lugs regulating this whole thing. I can't sell guns commercially unless I have an FFL which is a federal firearms dealer license. If I'm a federal firearms dealer I can't sell a firearm to somebody without having them fill out the 4473. I wouldn't be able to sell to 14-year-olds or felons these are all regulations that limit the right.
I’m pretty sure that Scalia wrote on behalf of the majority and actually said that.
I don't think he did because the regulations I listed above still exist an absolute right means no regulations at all and there are thousands of regulations.
On your second point, you can find that the Founders and Framers did not use that as a reason and that can be seen in their writings, personal journals and letters to each other and in various libraries like presidential libraries that can provide you with digital copies.

Also, you are going to have to justify why the government uses militias that the 2nd allowed private ownership of firearms for people to also use for formation of militias as well as personal use to put down and kill their fellow citizens.

What’s your evidence to refute known and documented history?
Well it's implied in the understanding of Rights. If a citizen for example threatens to take your life you have no right to life if you're not allowed to stop them with the most force you can muster. If the government limits the amount of your Force but can't do anything about criminals and they can't as they've proven then you don't have the right to life or anything at all ever.

Rights only exists because of force.
 
Aaaand we're done. I didn't resort to ad hominem attacks and made my positions clear.
If you doing like getting called out for lying predators stop lying.
You 100% went through my post and edited out out parts of it. To later claim you didn’t edit my post is a lie.
 
There are quite a few lugs regulating this whole thing. I can't sell guns commercially unless I have an FFL which is a federal firearms dealer license. If I'm a federal firearms dealer I can't sell a firearm to somebody without having them fill out the 4473. I wouldn't be able to sell to 14-year-olds or felons these are all regulations that limit the right.

I don't think he did because the regulations I listed above still exist an absolute right means no regulations at all and there are thousands of regulations.

Well it's implied in the understanding of Rights. If a citizen for example threatens to take your life you have no right to life if you're not allowed to stop them with the most force you can muster. If the government limits the amount of your Force but can't do anything about criminals and they can't as they've proven then you don't have the right to life or anything at all ever.

Rights only exists because of force.
'“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling.'

The Heller decision enables you to defend yourself as it is a lawful purpose. Having a license to sell doesn't prevent anyone from the right to bear arms. And if you really believe that it does, then you should be going one step further and outlaw selling firearms and munitions so that they can be given out for free as the cost of a firearm can prevent one from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Now, if you feel that is a ridiculous statement (and it is), then you have justified a level of regulating firearms for the American people.

Also, you have to remember that we have this thing called a court system and police force to mostly handle criminals since the beginning...there is no implied right for the people to regulate justice: the government does that. However, you have the right to using a firearm in a lawful purpose and self-defense is considered a lawful purpose. There is no vigilante justice.

And I'd like to point something out...the argument that law abiding citizens are punished because they have to go through regs to get firearms whereas criminals don't. Did it ever occur to you to circumvent the system and purchase illegally? I'm not advocating it, but it is certainly an option. And, just to make sure we are all living in the real world...if everyone is armed...a lot more people will die. CCW and increasing amount of firearms (America is a nation where citizens have multiple firearms per person, more so than most) will NOT decrease illegal activities that use a firearm. Gangbangers are willing to go after other gangbangers knowing they are armed as well and it happens everyday.

But, back to my original points that the 2nd isn't geared to arm the populace against the government: I've yet to see from you any evidence to refute my position. Which will be hard for you as it is based on historical documentation that can be accessed by anyone.
 
'“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
Correct there are literally hundreds of laws about this.
[It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling.'
I agree
The Heller decision enables you to defend yourself as it is a lawful purpose. Having a license to sell doesn't prevent anyone from the right to bear arms.
But that's limitation is it not?
And if you really believe that it does, then you should be going one step further and outlaw selling firearms and munitions so that they can be given out for free as the cost of a firearm can prevent one from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Now, if you feel that is a ridiculous statement (and it is), then you have justified a level of regulating firearms for the American people.

Also, you have to remember that we have this thing called a court system and police force to mostly handle criminals since the beginning...there is no implied right for the people to regulate justice: the government does that. However, you have the right to using a firearm in a lawful purpose and self-defense is considered a lawful purpose. There is no vigilante justice.
Of course you have the right to defend yourself and defend your rights. That start vigilante justice it's just self-defense
And I'd like to point something out...the argument that law abiding citizens are punished because they have to go through regs to get firearms whereas criminals don't. Did it ever occur to you to circumvent the system and purchase illegally?
I can convince this system and purchase legally this is a regulation on dealers
I'm not advocating it, but it is certainly an option. And, just to make sure we are all living in the real world...if everyone is armed...a lot more people will die.
That's false I've been places to whereeveryone is armed and nobody died.



CCW and increasing amount of firearms (America is a nation where citizens have multiple firearms per person, more so than most) will NOT decrease illegal activities that use a firearm.
Yeah it's not the lawful owners responsibility to decrease crime that's police so because we have firearms there won't be vigilante justice.
Gangbangers are willing to go after other gangbangers knowing they are armed as well and it happens everyday.
Okay
But, back to my original points that the 2nd isn't geared to arm the populace against the government:
That is precisely the point, and it has.
I've yet to see from you any evidence to refute my position. Which will be hard for you as it is based on historical documentation that can be accessed by anyone.
You need made some statements I agree with so which position am I supposed to refute here?
 
Funny, there's absolutely nothing to that effect mentioned in the floor debate of the first Congress when they discussed the subject in the summer of 1789.
You were there? Perhaps it might be helpful to reference the Minutemen. You know, ready for action in a minute's notice.
 
Back
Top Bottom