• 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!

Should the 2A be repealed?

Repeal the 2A?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
danielpalos said:
Our Founding Fathers were very clear when they established our Constitutional form for Government.


"Wellness of Regulation" must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...

Actually the Militia act of 1792, passed the year after the 2A was passed, put all militias under the command of the commander-in-chief of the United States, the president of the United States. It was just the job of the states to make sure they were well-trained and maintained. Any militia member caught disobeying the orders of the commander in chief could be court martialed. Now THAT's what I call well-regulated- not these weekend militia types today who are training to overthrow the commander in chief.

George Washington himself was the first to use the militia to put down a tax rebellion in Pennsylvania. I wonder what these militia types today would think if Biden called on them to go put down tax protestors.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Actually the Militia act of 1792, passed the year after the 2A was passed, put all militias under the command of the commander-in-chief of the United States, the president of the United States. It was just the job of the states to make sure they were well-trained and maintained. Any militia member caught disobeying the orders of the commander in chief could be court martialed. Now THAT's what I call well-regulated- not these weekend militia types today who are training to overthrow the commander in chief.

George Washington himself was the first to use the militia to put down a tax rebellion in Pennsylvania. I wonder what these militia types today would think if Biden called on them to go put down tax protestors.
Click to expand...

Only if they provide their own mobility scooters.

mil.jpg
 
Spirit of The Millennium said:
To remain safe from threats internal and external (including but not limited to the Federal government) every State must have the ability to call up a militia on short notice. To remain safe from internal threats however, such militia must be well ordered (selected and trained as the State Government sees fit.)

To make militia effective when necessary the body of (men/persons) commonly armed should be maximized as much as possible. This will be at each State government's discretion however: the Federal government shall not restrict any State government's ability to raise a militia, nor to arm citizens in anticipation of raising that militia.

The individual right to own guns (for example, for self defence) shall be regulated always by States and never by Federal government. The Federal government shall be assumed to always have sufficient of the state militias at its call (plus the purely Federal forces) and thus no need ever to issue a compulsory call to arms.
Click to expand...
The individual right to own firearms is guaranteed by the Constition, therefore the states SHOULD have no power over those rights. I would agree with your position if you said the states have the right to regulate abortion and gay marriage...neither of which are found in the Constitution. However gun rights are.
 
TheParser said:
NO

In the coming decades, violence will only become worse in this nation.

So good people need weapons to protect themselves.

The other day in tony Beverly Hills (a city next to Los Angeles) a perp had the temerity to enter that city (which was founded by silent movie stars), break a house's sliding glass door, and murder the wife of a prominent musician.

If it can happen in Beverly Hills, it can happen anywhere. Some perps even had the nerve to recently break into some high-end stores there.

Perps no longer have any inhibitions. They have been empowered by "progressive" politicians.

What else can an ordinary person do but to have some weapons to defend his family?
Click to expand...
Trust statistics.
 
VanceMack said:
The individual right to own firearms is guaranteed by the Constition, therefore the states SHOULD have no power over those rights. I would agree with your position if you said the states have the right to regulate abortion and gay marriage...neither of which are found in the Constitution. However gun rights are.
Click to expand...
Our Second Amendment is clear about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not Individual liberty.
 
VanceMack said:
The individual right to own firearms is guaranteed by the Constition, therefore the states SHOULD have no power over those rights. I would agree with your position if you said the states have the right to regulate abortion and gay marriage...neither of which are found in the Constitution. However gun rights are.
Click to expand...
No, individual rights were guaranteed by DC v Heller. 20 years from now there will be a whole segment of the country worrying about a new SCOTUS taking up a case against Heller the same way another group in the country is worrying about Roe today.
 
mrjurrs said:
No, individual rights were guaranteed by DC v Heller. 20 years from now there will be a whole segment of the country worrying about a new SCOTUS taking up a case against Heller the same way another group in the country is worrying about Roe today.
Click to expand...
There are no, Individual terms in our Second Amendment.
 
TurtleDude said:
what? where do you come up with that idiocy? it takes far more than congress
Click to expand...
Do you understand that the Constitution has been Amended before..

quote

Constitutional Amendment Process​

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b.

end quote
 
RealityNow said:
Do you understand that the Constitution has been Amended before..

quote

Constitutional Amendment Process​

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b.

end quote
Click to expand...
you made it sound like congress can do it alone.
 
mrjurrs said:
No, individual rights were guaranteed by DC v Heller. 20 years from now there will be a whole segment of the country worrying about a new SCOTUS taking up a case against Heller the same way another group in the country is worrying about Roe today.
Click to expand...
The individual right comes from the fact that the federal government never had the proper power in the first place, to restrict private arms and that is a tenth amendment issue and perhaps a ninth amendment. The second amendment merely reiterates that lack of federal power but is less expansive than the tenth
 
TurtleDude said:
you made it sound like congress can do it alone.
Click to expand...
That was not the intent, Congress Legislates... There is always a process that follows what Congress does.
 
RealityNow said:
Congress can Amend any Constitutional Provision that it choose to Amend.

That's what Constitutional Authority they have!!!
Click to expand...
No, Congress can't amend anything in the Constitution. Its not a power it has. A constitutional convention isn't "Congress amending the Constitution"
 
Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
No, Congress can't amend anything in the Constitution. Its not a power it has. A constitutional convention isn't "Congress amending the Constitution"
Click to expand...
thanks for introducing some reality into that discussion
 
ataraxia said:
Very few people want to ban all guns. Most would be fine with regulating their use just like automobiles and any other potentially hazardous equipment.
Click to expand...
ban all guns? no. ban lots of guns, Yes. firearms are already heavily regulated.
 
TurtleDude said:
The individual right comes from the fact that the federal government never had the proper power in the first place, to restrict private arms and that is a tenth amendment issue and perhaps a ninth amendment. The second amendment merely reiterates that lack of federal power but is less expansive than the tenth
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that?

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
bot speak: it recognizes an individual right by a blanket restriction on the government
Click to expand...
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 
mrjurrs said:
No, individual rights were guaranteed by DC v Heller. 20 years from now there will be a whole segment of the country worrying about a new SCOTUS taking up a case against Heller the same way another group in the country is worrying about Roe today.
Click to expand...
DC vs Heller did not guarantee the rights of the individual, it affirmed the Constitutional declaration of rights of the individual. Heller did not establish law, but rather applied it based on the Constitution.
 
danielpalos said:
Our Second Amendment is clear about what is Necessary to the security of a free State not Individual liberty.
Click to expand...
Had the 2nd said "the rights of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I would be compelled to agree with you.
 
VanceMack said:
DC vs Heller did not guarantee the rights of the individual, it affirmed the Constitutional declaration of rights of the individual. Heller did not establish law, but rather applied it based on the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The unorganized militia is not necessary to the security of a free State and therefore subject to the police power of an individual State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...
 
danielpalos said:
The unorganized militia is not necessary to the security of a free State and therefore subject to the police power of an individual State.
Click to expand...
logarithm needs work-that is non-responsive to what he said
 
VanceMack said:
Had the 2nd said "the rights of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I would be compelled to agree with you.
Click to expand...
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 
TurtleDude said:
logarithm needs work-that is non-responsive to what he said
Click to expand...
Not at all, you simply resort to special pleading which is usually considered a fallacy.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom