• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Quiz Question on Second Amendment:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,741
Reaction score
76,639
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
But it is. If you're not giving due respect to historical context how could you possibly expect to understand the meaning of an eighteenth century document?

It is historically inaccurate to anachronistically put a modern construction on the constitution, and it takes deep study of the time period to understand the original meaning.
so Guy, given that the commerce clause was never intended to allow the government the power to prevent private citizens from owning guns, what is your point?
 

tech30528

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,243
Reaction score
3,013
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Madison was very clear in his reasoning and intent in the Federalist Papers. He clearly defines a federal army to defend the country and a militia of citizens capable of defeating it. We don't have to guess what they meant, we can read it.
 

LagerHead

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
2,410
Reaction score
1,179
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It is not analogous. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was a legal term of art that specifically referred to military service. In its original meaning it does not, as many historically ignorant people think, mean the same thing as simply "hold and own guns."

"The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defense, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment."

So, you fail this quiz.
It was not at all uncommon for men to carry pistols on their person in those days, just as it is not at all uncommon now.

Feel free to look up the quote on your own. Just one of many historical examples demonstrating the original meaning of the phrase "keep and bear arms."

It is very common to misunderstand this now obsolete legal term of art, as you do. Don't feel bad, it requires some real study of history to get to the point where you can understand it. I suggest taking the time to study up.
You made the claim. The responsibility is on you to provide the evidence. Until you do so, this is just an opinion - an opinion with which the highest court in the land happens to disagree. In other words, folks with some credibility on the matter say that the random guy on the Internet is full of it. Prove them wrong.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It was not at all uncommon for men to carry pistols on their person in those days, just as it is not at all uncommon now.



You made the claim. The responsibility is on you to provide the evidence. Until you do so, this is just an opinion - an opinion with which the highest court in the land happens to disagree. In other words, folks with some credibility on the matter say that the random guy on the Internet is full of it. Prove them wrong.
I provided plenty of references. This is a well settled historical issue, to the point that the original meaning of the second amendment being militia based is essentially common knowledge.

So it may be helpful not to conceptualize this as a debate. It isn't. That implies a back and forth, with competing position. This is much closer to a lecture than a debate. I am educating you all on historical facts about that second amendment that you are ignorant of.
 

LagerHead

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
2,410
Reaction score
1,179
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I provided plenty of references. This is a well settled historical issue, to the point that the original meaning of the second amendment being militia based is essentially common knowledge.

So it may be helpful not to conceptualize this as a debate. It isn't. That implies a back and forth, with competing position. This is much closer to a lecture than a debate. I am educating you all on historical facts about that second amendment that you are ignorant of.
You assume much, son. I am far from ignorant on this subject. I can't, however, say the same thing for someone who thinks that the authors of the Constitution didn't know the difference between the words "militia" and "people." The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is clearly to protect against the state's militia, rather than to require membership in a militia as a condition of keeping and bearing arms. This is a settled historical matter, verified recently by the Supreme Court.

I am not reading a 71 page PDF file. If you have read it, point to page numbers/quotes that support your position.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,741
Reaction score
76,639
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I provided plenty of references. This is a well settled historical issue, to the point that the original meaning of the second amendment being militia based is essentially common knowledge.

So it may be helpful not to conceptualize this as a debate. It isn't. That implies a back and forth, with competing position. This is much closer to a lecture than a debate. I am educating you all on historical facts about that second amendment that you are ignorant of.
you calling someone ignorant is a stitch given your interpretation of the constitution is almost universally rejected by any constitutional scholar. since a 'well regulated militia' is a creature of government, that entity cannot be relevant to the existence of a right that was believed (and thus incorporated into our laws by the second amendment) to exist PRIOR to the creation of government

you are NOT educating anyone on FACTS but rather your posts continue to demonstrate your position is completely devoid of any basis in constitutional theory, history or most importantly, the beliefs the founders used to create the constitution
 

LagerHead

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
2,410
Reaction score
1,179
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
you calling someone ignorant is a stitch given your interpretation of the constitution is almost universally rejected by any constitutional scholar. since a 'well regulated militia' is a creature of government, that entity cannot be relevant to the existence of a right that was believed (and thus incorporated into our laws by the second amendment) to exist PRIOR to the creation of government

you are NOT educating anyone on FACTS but rather your posts continue to demonstrate your position is completely devoid of any basis in constitutional theory, history or most importantly, the beliefs the founders used to create the constitution
Pardon the pun, but BOOM, headshot!
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You assume much, son. I am far from ignorant on this subject. I can't, however, say the same thing for someone who thinks that the authors of the Constitution didn't know the difference between the words "militia" and "people." The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is clearly to protect against the state's militia, rather than to require membership in a militia as a condition of keeping and bearing arms. This is a settled historical matter, verified recently by the Supreme Court.

I am not reading a 71 page PDF file. If you have read it, point to page numbers/quotes that support your position.
See, here's the problem, the willfulness not to read to learn about the subject. It is impossible for the teacher to do his job when the student refuses to do their homework:shrug:

Ultimately, you do need to read all of those articles to get to where I am at. Otherwise, you can accept my synthesis of the information they contain.
 

LagerHead

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
2,410
Reaction score
1,179
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
See, here's the problem, the willfulness not to read to learn about the subject. It is impossible for the teacher to do his job when the student refuses to do their homework:shrug:

Ultimately, you do need to read all of those articles to get to where I am at. Otherwise, you can accept my synthesis of the information they contain.
So no. Just as I suspected.

I think Turtle more than thoroughly trounced your position. No need kicking a boy when he's down.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,741
Reaction score
76,639
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
See, here's the problem, the willfulness not to read to learn about the subject. It is impossible for the teacher to do his job when the student refuses to do their homework:shrug:

Ultimately, you do need to read all of those articles to get to where I am at. Otherwise, you can accept my synthesis of the information they contain.
LOL no he doesn't. He can just understand what CRUIKSHANK stated and understand what natural right the founders intended to incorporate into our jurisprudential fabric. Having done that, he can reject the completely inane claims that the second amendment was only applicable to those in FEDERAL service or that the second amendment was not a prohibition on a federal government that had no power to restrict privately owned firearms in the first place

and ultimately in order for you to get "where I am" you need to say graduate near the top of your class at a top drawer law school, then spend 30+ years actually involving yourself in constitutional law. otherwise you can bank on the fact that your interpretation is not only silly, it is contrary to almost every major league law review article written on the subject by our country's leading 2nd amendment scholars such as

Sanford Levinson
Akhil Reed Amar
David Koppel
Eugene Volokh
William Van Alstyne
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So no. Just as I suspected.

I think Turtle more than thoroughly trounced your position. No need kicking a boy when he's down.
It's really on you if you arent willing to read 71 pages to get some understanding of the historical context. This is not a history channel level issue. It is well understood by historians, and I am correct. It isn't a debate, I am simply because explaining a well known fact. I am trying to do you the favor of educating you. If you don't have the desire to receive the educate, you only succeed in persisting in ignorance. Those who are aware of the facts understand that I am correct.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,741
Reaction score
76,639
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It's really on you if you arent willing to read 71 pages to get some understanding of the historical context. This is not a history channel level issue. It is well understood by historians, and I am correct. It isn't a debate, I am simply because explaining a well known fact. I am trying to do you the favor of educating you. If you don't have the desire to receive the educate, you only succeed in persisting in ignorance. Those who are aware of the facts understand that I am correct.
why should he read stuff that your posts demonstrate you don't understand. You are not in a position to educate ANYONE on second amendment issues given how many basic level errors your posts contain.
 

Seitz

Banned
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Best researched reference.
[h=1]The right to keep and bear arms : report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, second session.[/h]
 

LagerHead

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
2,410
Reaction score
1,179
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's really on you if you arent willing to read 71 pages to get some understanding of the historical context. This is not a history channel level issue. It is well understood by historians, and I am correct. It isn't a debate, I am simply because explaining a well known fact. I am trying to do you the favor of educating you. If you don't have the desire to receive the educate, you only succeed in persisting in ignorance. Those who are aware of the facts understand that I am correct.
No, it's a well known fact that you are wrong. I don't have to provide references either because I am right and history is on my side. Like you said, this isn't a debate, this is pissingcontest.com and you just lost.

See how empty and vapid your position sounds? I'm through with you. You're obviously not willing to back up your position because you can't. Let me know if that changes.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, it's a well known fact that you are wrong. I don't have to provide references either because I am right and history is on my side. Like you said, this isn't a debate, this is pissingcontest.com and you just lost.

See how empty and vapid your position sounds? I'm through with you. You're obviously not willing to back up your position because you can't. Let me know if that changes.
That's the problem, I've provided plenty of references and you've obstinately refused to read them. You are simply wrong, your wrongness is apparent to all who are familiar with the subject matter. I have gone above and beyond in an attempt to educate you. Your unwillingness to read and your desire to remain ignorant is your own problem.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,741
Reaction score
76,639
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That's the problem, I've provided plenty of references and you've obstinately refused to read them. You are simply wrong, your wrongness is apparent to all who are familiar with the subject matter. I have gone above and beyond in an attempt to educate you. Your unwillingness to read and your desire to remain ignorant is your own problem.
generally, the more vociferous you are in claiming someone else is wrong, the more your argument is specious and your opponents' is meritorious You are completely wrong about the second amendment and you are almost invariably spewing nonsense about other aspects of gun ownership such as your silly claim that gun ownership is Violent etc
 

LagerHead

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 24, 2014
Messages
2,410
Reaction score
1,179
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's the problem, I've provided plenty of references and you've obstinately refused to read them. You are simply wrong, your wrongness is apparent to all who are familiar with the subject matter. I have gone above and beyond in an attempt to educate you. Your unwillingness to read and your desire to remain ignorant is your own problem.
You've babbled on for so long about how brilliant your are I've forgotten what stupid argument you were making in the first place. Enjoy baking in your own self proclaimed greatness. I look forward to your witty retort.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You've babbled on for so long about how brilliant your are I've forgotten what stupid argument you were making in the first place. Enjoy baking in your own self proclaimed greatness. I look forward to your witty retort.
You know, I never said anything about being brilliant. The fact that I take the time to read up on the subject doesn't make me brilliant, it just makes me not ignorant.

This is not my own argument, I have read the writings of other, more learned historians and scholars of legal history. It certainly doesn't require any particular brilliance to understand this issue.

There are really two critical points:

1. The prefatory clause informs the entire amendment.
2. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was an eighteenth century era term of art referring to martial service, and similar to other legal phrases like "hue and cry" that had a specific legal meaning.

When understood in historical context, it is all pretty clear what the framers understood the sentence to mean, and the modern tendency to interpret it more broadly is an obviously anachronistic misinterpretation.

But gun people are so emotionally invested that they can't be objective:shrug:
 
Last edited:

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
21,347
Reaction score
2,166
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The bonus question, choice B is where this gets spun. It doesn't say in the 2A "the" free state, it says "a" free state. Back when it was written, well before the standardization of English, it was standard to capitalize both common and proper nouns. Further if "state" was intended to be a proper noun, why is it not plural? The word state as a common noun would refer to a state of mind or a state of being.
For crying out loud, just read the Federalist Papers if you wish to know what the founding fathers (of The Constitution) thought about this. It ain't difficult. No examination of the word is is needed.
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,741
Reaction score
76,639
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You know, I never said anything about being brilliant. The fact that I take the time to read up on the subject doesn't make me brilliant, it just makes me not ignorant.

This is not my own argument, I have read the writings of other, more learned historians and scholars of legal history. It certainly doesn't require any particular brilliance to understand this issue.

There are really two critical points:

1. The prefatory clause informs the entire amendment.
2. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was an eighteenth century era term of art referring to martial service, and similar to other legal phrases like "hue and cry" that had a specific legal meaning.

When understood in historical context, it is all pretty clear what the framers understood the sentence to mean, and the modern tendency to interpret it more broadly is an obviously anachronistic misinterpretation.

But gun people are so emotionally invested that they can't be objective:shrug:
Ignorant isn't the word I would use either. Your posts are based on the completely wrong interpretation of the information you apparently have gathered. your interpretations of the second amendment are contrary to the intent of the founders, the context of the constitution, the paradigm upon which the the founders based the constitution upon, almost every law review article and certainly every one from major league schools and of course the Heller decision. in other words, every possible source of information and interpretation declares your position to be WRONG
 

Ancient Herald

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
2,637
Reaction score
668
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think we all have the right to sleeveless shirts, as in bare arms.
 

cabse5

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
21,347
Reaction score
2,166
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think the founders thought Americans had the right not to wax their hairy arms. As in the right to keep their bear arms.
 
Last edited:

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
For crying out loud, just read the Federalist Papers if you wish to know what the founding fathers (of The Constitution) thought about this. It ain't difficult. No examination of the word is is needed.
A lot of people, lawyers and judges included, make the mistake of falsely imputing modern understandings of words onto the words of laws written hundreds of years ago. That is the major flaw in your analysis. You can't just read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution and act like you've got it all figured out. The world is a very different place now than it was back when these document were written. You need to learn the history.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,741
Reaction score
76,639
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A lot of people, lawyers and judges included, make the mistake of falsely imputing modern understandings of words onto the words of laws written hundreds of years ago. That is the major flaw in your analysis. You can't just read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution and act like you've got it all figured out. The world is a very different place now than it was back when these document were written. You need to learn the history.
you are telling someone else to learn history? what was the right the founders recognized with the 2A. you know the right that the founders, all the early legal scholars (Rawles, St George Tucker etc) and the USSC for the first 100 years (see CRUIKSHANK) all referred to as being Incorporated and guaranteed by the second amendment?
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,644
Reaction score
20,543
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
There are really two critical points:

1. The prefatory clause informs the entire amendment.
2. The phrase "keep and bear arms" was an eighteenth century era term of art referring to martial service, and similar to other legal phrases like "hue and cry" that had a specific legal meaning.

When understood in historical context, it is all pretty clear what the framers understood the sentence to mean, and the modern tendency to interpret it more broadly is an obviously anachronistic misinterpretation.
In order to understand it in "historical context" one must have studied the "historical context," as opposed to quoting from sources who are trying to place a modern interpretation on the social paradigm of that era.

Now, please provide specific "historical context" citations for that "martial term of art" interpretation you are trying to impose on "keep and bear arms."

Then cite specific "historical context" supporting the position that the "prefatory clause informs the whole amendment."

Aside from the fact that the SCOTUS Heller v. D.C. ruling has clarified it (apparently in a way you prefer not to accept), in MY study of the period I don't recall arguments tying the right to a militia purpose and no other purpose but that. I would be VERY interested in seeing and then researching exactly what "historical context" materials you think support your viewpoint.

PLEASE, "enlighten" me. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom