• 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!

Isn't It Time?

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
122,662
Reaction score
27,418
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Isn't it time for gun owners to finally have to live up to their obligation to be in a Well Regulated Militia?

It is really disheartening to see these gun owners be so cowardly... hiding behind an errant Decision. Why?
 
Isn't it time for gun owners to finally have to live up to their obligation to be in a Well Regulated Militia?

It is really disheartening to see these gun owners be so cowardly... hiding behind an errant Decision. Why?

What obligation to be in a Well Regulated Militia?
 
The 2nd amendment doesn't command everyone to be in a well regulated militia - it only says that the People have the right to form one.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"The great object is that every man be armed. . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
 
The 2nd amendment doesn't command everyone to be in a well regulated militia - it only says that the People have the right to form one.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"The great object is that every man be armed. . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
That is nice and all... what they said. But what matters is what the Constitution says.

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.

Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is literally a specific reason as to why the people have the right to bear arms... that is to be in/form a well regulated militia.

 
The Constitution does not impose any obligations on citizens.
Sure it does... that is, unless you think a 20 year old can run for President, among other things, like owning guns just for the heck of it.
 
That is nice and all... what they said. But what matters is what the Constitution says.

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.

Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is literally a specific reason as to why the people have the right to bear arms... that is to be in/form a well regulated militia.


The people ARE the militia. In order for the militia to be well-regulated, the people must be able to keep and bear arms.

Sure it does... that is, unless you think a 20 year old can run for President, among other things, like owning guns just for the heck of it.

That's a requirement for a person to serve in a particular government job or, in other words, a restriction on the government.
 
Is this thread an attempt to incite a civil war?
A part of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment was to ensure there would be no need to arm people should the need to activate a militia arise, by recognizing the Right of each individual to be prepared in advance of such need with the Right of self defense self-evident in maintaining the Right to life.
 
Isn't it time for gun owners to finally have to live up to their obligation to be in a Well Regulated Militia?

It is really disheartening to see these gun owners be so cowardly... hiding behind an errant Decision. Why?
Can you quote the part of the 2nd that says one must be in a well regulated militia.


Because I just double checked and it says the right of the people. Not the people in the militia.
 
There is literally a specific reason as to why the people have the right to bear arms... that is to be in/form a well regulated militia.
Exactly. It says they have a right, and outlines a reason. I don't see the word "obligated", or "obligation" there.
 
That is nice and all... what they said. But what matters is what the Constitution says.

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.

Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

There is literally a specific reason as to why the people have the right to bear arms... that is to be in/form a well regulated militia.
Sorry I know you think you came up with some new and clever idea but honestly this exact same BS has been destroyed over and over again.

Might need to try a little harder.
 
Sure it does... that is, unless you think a 20 year old can run for President, among other things, like owning guns just for the heck of it.
Again you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. As usual.
 
The people ARE the militia. In order for the militia to be well-regulated, the people must be able to keep and bear arms.
That is a cop-out argument. The people with guns are the militia but for hundreds of years they have hidden. They are not well-regulated in any sense of the term. They claim an individual right to own guns... you are kinda teetering on the edge though... and acknowledging a collective right though.
That's a requirement for a person to serve in a particular government job or, in other words, a restriction on the government
No. It is a restriction on people, clearly, stating what people can do what. A restriction on the government is about passing laws, interpreting them, executive powers, etc.
That's a requirement for a person to serve in a particular government job or, in other words, a restriction on the government.
Just like it is a requirement for a person to be in the militia in order to own guns...
 
Is this thread an attempt to incite a civil war
God, I hope you don't have any guns.
A part of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment was to ensure there would be no need to arm people should the need to activate a militia arise, by recognizing the Right of each individual to be prepared in advance of such need with the Right of self defense self-evident in maintaining the Right to life.
You are making that up.
 
Again you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. As usual.
nice argument. full of fail and insult instead of facts. LOL
 
Nobody has. Go research a little and try again.

It is working just fine.
See no one who isn’t trolling would make such a blatantly false claim.
 
Exactly. It says they have a right, and outlines a reason. I don't see the word "obligated", or "obligation" there.
It is obviously implied. They would not give a specific reason unless it was.

Just think how easy this would have been for the Founders.

The people are the militia and all people have the right to bear arms, should they choose to be part of a well regulated militia or not is up to them.

Hell, I just came up with that and I am no Founding Genius.
 
God, I hope you don't have any guns.

You are making that up.
I have quite a few, but I'm not promoting any violence.

Just clarifying what should be obvious.
 
Isn't it time for gun owners to finally have to live up to their obligation to be in a Well Regulated Militia?

It is really disheartening to see these gun owners be so cowardly... hiding behind an errant Decision. Why?
So far as I am aware there isn't any legal requirement to be part of a well regulated militia.
The Judicial branch of our government has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual one, and I think it'll remain that way until and unless they reverse their decision or we pass a new constitutional amendment and it's ratified by 2/3rds of the states.
 
It is obviously implied. They would not give a specific reason unless it was.

Just think how easy this would have been for the Founders.

The people are the militia and all people have the right to bear arms, should they choose to be part of a well regulated militia or not is up to them.

Hell, I just came up with that and I am no Founding Genius.
Ahh. So now you don’t want to go by what the constitution actually says but by what you think it implies. Wonder why such a quick change of heart.


See this is why you need to step up your game. It’s just too weak
 
Back
Top Bottom