• 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Should the 2A be repealed?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.
redbeer said:
By the actual words in the Second Amendment....here:


iu



You are assuming because of what Mason has said, but by looking at the actual text of the Second Amendment, it's clear two groups of people are being spoken about.


The first half....."a well regulated militia"

The second half....."the right of the people"


A "militia" is armed by its very definition, regulated by the government for the security of a free state.

They then secondly, separating between the two (militia and people), state the people also have the right to keep and bear arms, for it would be nonsensical to state this for the "militia".....it's just that simple.
Click to expand...
There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment; thus, this must apply as a State's sovereign right: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
 
rahl said:
Correct

Yes quite clear. The right to bear arms is completely irrelevant to service in any militia.
Click to expand...
Only for the People who are well regulated and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Otherwise, this must apply, subject to due process:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
 
danielpalos said:
Only for the People who are well regulated and keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...
Nope.
danielpalos said:
Otherwise, this must apply, subject to due process:

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...
Nope. The right of the people is protected. Militia service is completely irrelevant.
 
rahl said:
Nope.

Nope. The right of the people is protected. Militia service is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Your arguments are irrelevant. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
 
danielpalos said:
There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment; thus, this must apply as a State's sovereign right: 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...

A militia by definition is armed, albeit a militia is made up by civilians, and not so much like a governmental army. Albeit, the same, they are armed without saying......the second half speaks of the people, those not of the militia, who shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed upon. Both the militia and people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Why would our founders want and desire this?......clearly so we could stand against tyranny. A corrupt government would be less likely to advance its unlikable desires upon the citizens, knowing they are armed......oh but an unarmed citizenry would be easily taken over, subdued, and brought into subjection. This is why this country was founded, to fight and stand against tyranny.....do you think it was not in their minds and hearts in the writing of this Amendment?
 
danielpalos said:
Your arguments are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It’s not my argument. It’s constitutional law as pointed out by the Supreme Court lol.
danielpalos said:
The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...
Nope. The right of the people is protected. Service in a militia is irrelevant nor required.
 
redbeer said:
A militia by definition is armed, albeit a militia is made up by civilians, and not so much like a governmental army. Albeit, the same, they are armed without saying......the second half speaks of the people, those not of the militia, who shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed upon. Both the militia and people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Why would our founders want and desire this?......clearly so we could stand against tyranny. A corrupt government would be less likely to advance its unlikable desires upon the citizens, knowing they are armed......oh but an unarmed citizenry would be easily taken over, subdued, and brought into subjection. This is why this country was founded, to fight and stand against tyranny.....do you think it was not in their minds and hearts in the writing of this Amendment?
Click to expand...
We have to quibble since we have a Constitution.

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

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
 
danielpalos said:
I demur. We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Click to expand...
Which are entirely irrelevant to anything being discussed. Your argument remains refuted as you’ve been shown thousands of times. Dc v Heller. Trolling doesn’t make that go away.
 
danielpalos said:
We have to quibble since we have a Constitution.

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

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for the security needs of their State or the Union.
Click to expand...

Even when we examine the words of George Mason, who you continue to quote, it does you disservice.....lets look:


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? "It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."......now you take these words to exclude the citizenry and place them upon only the militia, but here George Mason states the militia is the "whole people", meaning both the members of the militia and the citizens, its people.

Making the Second Amendment out to be only for the militia goes against what George Mason states......as he clearly states the militia is the whole of people, except for a few public officials. Excluding the average citizen out of the Second Amendment or the words of George Mason is wrong on all counts, as shown.
 
rahl said:
Which are entirely irrelevant to anything being discussed. Your argument remains refuted as you’ve been shown thousands of times. Dc v Heller. Trolling doesn’t make that go away.
Click to expand...
You need a valid argument to provide a refutation. Simply proclaiming what you do, doesn't make it any more true.

I believe States have bargaining power regarding that issue due to our Tenth Amendment.

This is a sovereign State's right secured by our Second Amendment:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 
redbeer said:
Even when we examine the words of George Mason, who you continue to quote, it does you disservice.....lets look:


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? "It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."......now you take these words to exclude the citizenry and place them upon only the militia, but here George Mason states the militia is the "whole people", meaning both the members of the militia and the citizens, its people.

Making the Second Amendment out to be only for the militia goes against what George Mason states......as he clearly states the militia is the whole of people, except for a few public officials. Excluding the average citizen out of the Second Amendment or the words of George Mason is wrong on all counts, as shown.
Click to expand...


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.
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
 
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

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.
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
Click to expand...
Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!
 
danielpalos said:
You need a valid argument to provide a refutation.
Click to expand...
Dc v heller


danielpalos said:
Simply proclaiming what you do, doesn't make it any more true.
Click to expand...
Which is why I refuted you with constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent. Trolling doesn’t make it go away. You haven’t fooled anyone on this forum or politicalforum.com.
 
rahl said:
Dc v heller



Which is why I refuted you with constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent. Trolling doesn’t make it go away. You haven’t fooled anyone on this forum or politicalforum.com.
Click to expand...
Only communists are above Constitutional Law for Legal purposes.

Article 4 All ethnic groups of the People’s Republic of China are equal. The state shall protect the lawful rights and interests of all ethnic minorities and uphold and promote relations of equality, unity, mutual assistance and harmony among all ethnic groups. Discrimination against and oppression of any ethnic group are prohibited; any act that undermines the unity of ethnic groups or creates divisions among them is prohibited.
Click to expand...
 
Our Second Amendment is clear.

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.
Click to expand...
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...
Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well until we have no more security problems in our free States!
 
Does the Judicature merely need practice implementing the common law for the common defense?

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.
Click to expand...
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
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
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom