• 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!

The facts about the second amendment and gun rights[W:80, 194]

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,846
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As a libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of the right to own property, including guns, without government regulation. I also don't particularly care for guns, which permits me to view the gun issue with objectivity. So many gun rights supporters are gun owners who have a highly emotionally charged stake in the matter.

So, with my unique objecitivity to be able to sort through to nonsensical ideas put forward by the pro gun side, here are a few undeniable facts:

*The original intent of the second amendment was only to protect the right of the states to maintain a militia from federal infringement. It is a well established historical fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" had a specialized meaning in the eighteenth century related to martial service. No serious historian disputes this.

*There is no individual right to gun ownership specifically spelled out in the constitution; the founders considered that right a part of the infinitude of unwritten natural rights.

*If your primary concen is self defense, owning a gun is, statistically speaking, a really dumb idea. Owning a gun makes you and your loved ones MORE likely to die of gun violence not less.

*All this being said, every person has a moral right to complete and unrestricted ownership of guns, including automatics, including extended magazines. Since 2008, that fundamental right is even recognized under US law.

Now, keep in mind these are facts. You can try to dispute them but it won't do any good. On the contrary, anybody disputing any of the above facts is an enemy of he gun rights cause. Arguing against these facts makes the pro gun side look foolish. So get your facts straight and go forth and support the right to own guns.
 
Last edited:

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As a libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of the right to own property, including guns, without government regulation. I also don't particularly care for guns, which permits me to view the gun issue with objectivity. So many gun rights supporters are gun owners who have a highly emotionally charged stake in the matter.

So, with my unique objecitivity to be able to sort through to nonsensical ideas put forward by the pro gun side, here are a few undeniable facts:

*The original intent of the second amendment was only to protect the right of the states to maintain a militia from federal infringement. It is a well established historical fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" had a specialized meaning in the eighteenth century related to martial service. No serious historian disputes this.

*There is no individual right to gun ownership specifically spelled out in the constitution; the founders considered that right a part of the infinitude of unwritten natural rights.

*If your primary concen is self defense, owning a gun is, statistically speaking, a really dumb idea. Owning a gun makes you and your loved ones MORE likely to die of gun violence not less.

*All this being said, every person has a moral right to complete and unrestricted ownership of guns, including automatics, including extended magazines. Since 2008, that fundamental right is even recognized under US law.

Now, keep in mind these are facts. You can try to dispute them but it won't do any good. On the contrary, anybody disputing any of the above facts is an enemy of he gun rights cause. Arguing against these facts makes the pro gun side look foolish. So get your facts straight and go forth and support the right to own guns.
Well since it won't do any good to debate this and I would be an enemy of the 2nd.....SAY'S YOU! (>;)
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,846
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well since it won't do any good to debate this and I would be an enemy of the 2nd.....SAY'S YOU! (>;)

Says me indeed. You really can't get any better than that! Think of this as less of a debate and more of a public service announcement.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,868
Reaction score
53,570
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As a libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of the right to own property, including guns, without government regulation. I also don't particularly care for guns, which permits me to view the gun issue with objectivity. So many gun rights supporters are gun owners who have a highly emotionally charged stake in the matter.

So, with my unique objecitivity to be able to sort through to nonsensical ideas put forward by the pro gun side, here are a few undeniable facts:

*The original intent of the second amendment was only to protect the right of the states to maintain a militia from federal infringement. It is a well established historical fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" had a specialized meaning in the eighteenth century related to martial service. No serious historian disputes this.

*There is no individual right to gun ownership specifically spelled out in the constitution; the founders considered that right a part of the infinitude of unwritten natural rights.

[snip...]

Wrong. The 2A is in the constitution, as part of the bill of rights, and it indeed affirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Even you have acknowedged the recent SCOTUS decisions affirming that individual constitutional right. The argument now amounts to just how much "reasonable restriction" can occur before that individual constitutional right is considered to have been infringed.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,545
Reaction score
9,078
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
As a libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of the right to own property, including guns, without government regulation. I also don't particularly care for guns, which permits me to view the gun issue with objectivity. So many gun rights supporters are gun owners who have a highly emotionally charged stake in the matter.

So, with my unique objecitivity to be able to sort through to nonsensical ideas put forward by the pro gun side, here are a few undeniable facts:

*The original intent of the second amendment was only to protect the right of the states to maintain a militia from federal infringement. It is a well established historical fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" had a specialized meaning in the eighteenth century related to martial service. No serious historian disputes this.

*There is no individual right to gun ownership specifically spelled out in the constitution; the founders considered that right a part of the infinitude of unwritten natural rights.

*If your primary concen is self defense, owning a gun is, statistically speaking, a really dumb idea. Owning a gun makes you and your loved ones MORE likely to die of gun violence not less.

*All this being said, every person has a moral right to complete and unrestricted ownership of guns, including automatics, including extended magazines. Since 2008, that fundamental right is even recognized under US law.

Now, keep in mind these are facts. You can try to dispute them but it won't do any good. On the contrary, anybody disputing any of the above facts is an enemy of he gun rights cause. Arguing against these facts makes the pro gun side look foolish. So get your facts straight and go forth and support the right to own guns.
Yeah you have a unique objectivity that makes you wrong.

Your assertions have recently been destroyed by Mr. Willie Orwontee. And you know it.

Starting here with the following.

The 2nd Amendment has very, very limited action, it only "does" one thing . . .

It redundantly forbids the federal government* to exercise powers that were never granted to it.

It never had, nor was it intended to have, nor has it ever been inspected to have, nor has it ever been held to have any action relating to the organization, training, maintenance or deployment of "militia"by either federal or state governments.

The theories that the 2nd Amendment speaks to militia powers or the right of states to form / control their militia without federal interference is of recent origin in the federal system (1942) and has never had any presence in the federal judiciary, actually deciding conflicts of federal vs state militia powers.

The people who promote such "militia right" or 'state's right" (or the general 'collective right") theories would force us to accept that the principles of conferred powers and retained rights either never existed or are now defunct (for some unexplained reason they can't articulate in any reasoned legal argument).

They need to ignore / dismiss those fundamental principles of the US Constitution because their anti-Constitution, leftist political agenda forces them to . . . They need to present the argument that the rights of citizens are dependent upon what the 2nd Amendment says as if it was a permission slip that metes out just the specific degree of gun rights the framers wanted us to have and the conditions under which that "right" can be exercised. Such a statist, authoritarian mindset is the anti-thesis of the rights theory and political principles the founders / framers embraced, believed in and used as the foundation for the Constitution.

So, in your quest to discover what the 2nd Amendment actually says, the first thing to understand is that the individual citizens do not possess the right to keep and bear arms because of what the 2nd Amendment says . . . We possess the right because of what the body of the Constitution DOESN'T say, as we did not grant the federal government a shred of power to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.

The question then (pertaining to the constitutional legitimacy of gun control) isn't what right can be discerned (interpreted) from the words, construction or punctuation of the 2nd Amendment; the question is what powers have been granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

And the answer to that question is . . . . . NONE!

The 2nd Amendment only serves as a reminder of that fact; redundantly forbidding government to exercise powers never granted to it.



*Originally, the 2nd Amendment only bound the action of the federal government until 2010 when it was "incorporated" under the 14th Amendment and held to bind state action as well.

And then continuing as direct replies to you.

No, it doesn't come down to what the second amendment actually says (whatever that means). It comes down to what the most recent Supreme Court interpretation of the second amendment says it says.
And since the Court first spoke of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment some 140 years ago, they have never wavered from the fact that the right is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd (since it was possessed by the people before the Constitution was established and no aspect of the right was surrendered to government via the Constitution) so it is deemed a "pre-existing right' and thus is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense from the KKK by ex-slaves citizens in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”​


Originally, the second amendment protected a militia-based right.
No, then as now it protected a right that the people never parted with. This was the prinary argument against ading a bill of rights because it was thought unnecessary and dangerous to say things shall not be done when no power was granted to act against those interests.

One chokes on the irony when reading your drivel as your argument is precisely what the federalists feared; misconstructing the provision into creating a regulatory power on the right. It would be funny if it weren't so detestably anti-Constitution.


All SCOTUS did in Heller was slap the lower federal courts back into the constitutional fold and invalidate the "state's right" and "militia right" perversions inserted into the federal courts in 1942.
All SCOTUS did in Heller was slap the lower federal courts back into the constitutional fold and invalidate the "state's right" and "militia right" perversions inserted into the federal courts in 1942.


I completely agree with that, and I've been saying that all along.
No, you have been saying that the right, without any consideration of its origin or nature, is qualified and conditioned by the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment. You can not argue that the right is pre-existing the Constitution, never has any aspect of it been conferred to government and thus fully retained by the people ("What's important is the fact that the right to own and use guns is a natural right, that is one of innumerable natural rights found outside the constitution. ")and then proceed to argue, ("The second amendment related to the militia, and the phrase "keep and bear arms" was a term of art referring to militia serve. Personal, individual gun ownership had NOTHING to do with the original meaning of the second amendment").



Therefore, when people try to argue that the right to own guns in found in the second amendment it is WRONG and/or DISHONEST, as I am sure you will agree.
True that the right is "not found" in the Amendment because it does not in any manner depend on the 2ndA to exist. You OTOH are "WRONG and/or DISHONEST" in saying that no protection for the individual right to keep and bear arms is found in the 2nd Amendment . . . because that is the Amendment's only operation, to declare that the right shall not be infringed. That is the only language in the 2nd Amendment that has ever been recognized as having any action.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: [quoting the 1876 case but exchanging the language of the indictment for the text of the 2nd Amendment] "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”​



So, the only thing that can be taken away from a reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the 2nd Amendment declares that "it" shall not be infringed. The "it" of course is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The right itself does not in any manner depend on what the 2nd Amendment says (or doesn't say), because the right pre-exists the Constitution.

This means it is illegitimate to do what you are doing, imparting a "militia" conditioning or qualification on the right to arms with your inventive misconstruction of the 2nd Amendment.

So, the questions I would like to be answered are, what don't you understand about 137 years and counting of SCOTUS saying the right to arms is in no manner dependent upon the 2nd Amendment and how do you justify holding the opinion that the right does depend on the 2nd, in such offensive opposition to longstanding determinations of the Supreme Court?


The second amendment is irrelevant to an individual right to possess and own weapons, as you yourself demonstrated with several quotes from caselaw. Which is why I maintain that the second amendment's original meaning relates only to a militia right.It is redundant, not irrelevant and certainly most relevant in a post Slaughterhouse Cases / selective incorporation rights climate.

Your position demands you twist and conjure into being things that don't exist, while you purposefully ignore things that do exist.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms does exist . . . a "militia right" belonging to the states or the people does not exist.

There is no such thing as a "militia right" because the process and means of calling up and organizing, training, drilling and deploying the citizenry as militia is a power conferred to the federal government through Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16. There is no "right" to be claimed by any entity (state or private citizen) for any aspect of militia activity (for as long as the government is deemed by the people to be acting within the confines of Constitution).

See, this demonstrates the pure folly of your argument . . . You claim the 2nd protects an immunity from federal power that no state has ever imagined and SCOTUS has consistently ignored for 193 years and counting . . .
The second amendment is irrelevant to an individual right to possess and own weapons, as you yourself demonstrated with several quotes from caselaw. Which is why I maintain that the second amendment's original meaning relates only to a militia right.
It is redundant, not irrelevant and certainly most relevant in a post Slaughterhouse Cases / selective incorporation rights climate.

Your position demands you twist and conjure into being things that don't exist, while you purposefully ignore things that do exist.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms does exist . . . a "militia right" belonging to the states or the people does not exist.

There is no such thing as a "militia right" because the process and means of calling up and organizing, training, drilling and deploying the citizenry as militia is a power conferred to the federal government through Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16. There is no "right" to be claimed by any entity (state or private citizen) for any aspect of militia activity (for as long as the government is deemed by the people to be acting within the confines of Constitution).

See, this demonstrates the pure folly of your argument . . . You claim the 2nd protects an immunity from federal power that no state has ever imagined and SCOTUS has consistently ignored for 193 years and counting . . .
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,545
Reaction score
9,078
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
And then again in another thread.

Originally, "keep and bear arms" was a legal term of art that referred to militia service. This is well-known to historians.
Who are adept at ignoring the philosophical guideposts and legal walls that extinguish their crude and disconnected theories.

The fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights denies any "interpretation" that the words, syntax or punctuation of the 2nd Amendment conditions, qualifies, or restricts the right for regular citizens or reserves the exercise and 2nd Amendment's protection to a select class of approved arms bearers.

These historians must also ignore the clear and unambigous determinations of SCOTUS that confirm the principle of the right to arms beiing an original, fundamental, fully retained right of the people who ordained the Constitution and not possessed by an entity (the organized militia) that is entirely dependent for its existence upon the Constitution and the militia clauses authorizing Congressional action to organize, discipline, train and "arm" the militia. Talk about putting the cart before the ox.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."* This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . ”



The right does not in any manner depend on what you or your historians pretend "well regulated" means . . .
The right does not in any manner depend on what you or your historians pretend "necessary" means . . .
The right does not in any manner depend on what you or your historians pretend "security" means . . .
The right does not in any manner depend on what you or your historians pretend "free state" means . . .
The right does not in any manner depend on what you or your historians pretend "keep" means . . .
The right does not in any manner depend on what you or your historians pretend "bear" means . . .
The right does not in any manner depend on what you or your historians pretend "infringed" means . . .


The right to arms doesn't exist because the 2nd Amendment is there; the right IN NO MANNER DEPENDS on the Constitution to exist.

The right exists and is possessed by the people because the people, when establishing the powers of the federal government, never granted a shred of power to the federal government to allow it to even compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.

Why do you persist in presenting these defunct and corrupt theories that stand in such clear opposition to the principles and legal action of the Constitution?

Is the leftist, statist, authoritarian anti-constitution agenda really that alluring to you?


* The "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" cited in this case was that of self defense, exercised by two Freedmen (former slaves but in 1873, US citizens) against the KKK. They were not militia members and at that time, Louisiana had no official state militia, it having been disbanded by Congress.



Thank you Mr. Willie Orwontee for doing such a fine job at dispelling the others bs.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,846
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Wrong. The 2A is in the constitution, as part of the bill of rights, and it indeed affirms the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Even you have acknowedged the recent SCOTUS decisions affirming that individual constitutional right. The argument now amounts to just how much "reasonable restriction" can occur before that individual constitutional right is considered to have been infringed.

You are wrong. As I said, it isn't part of the original meaning of the second amendment and the right never appears directly inthe bill of rights. The second amendment has been given a gloss by the supreme court and has a new meaning now, through case law.
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As a libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of the right to own property, including guns, without government regulation. I also don't particularly care for guns, which permits me to view the gun issue with objectivity. So many gun rights supporters are gun owners who have a highly emotionally charged stake in the matter.

So, with my unique objecitivity to be able to sort through to nonsensical ideas put forward by the pro gun side, here are a few undeniable facts:

*The original intent of the second amendment was only to protect the right of the states to maintain a militia from federal infringement. It is a well established historical fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" had a specialized meaning in the eighteenth century related to martial service. No serious historian disputes this.

*There is no individual right to gun ownership specifically spelled out in the constitution; the founders considered that right a part of the infinitude of unwritten natural rights.

*If your primary concen is self defense, owning a gun is, statistically speaking, a really dumb idea. Owning a gun makes you and your loved ones MORE likely to die of gun violence not less.

*All this being said, every person has a moral right to complete and unrestricted ownership of guns, including automatics, including extended magazines. Since 2008, that fundamental right is even recognized under US law.

Now, keep in mind these are facts. You can try to dispute them but it won't do any good. On the contrary, anybody disputing any of the above facts is an enemy of he gun rights cause. Arguing against these facts makes the pro gun side look foolish. So get your facts straight and go forth and support the right to own guns.

What you claim to be facts are simply assertions on your part that bear little or no resemblance to reality.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,846
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What you claim to be facts are simply assertions on your part that bear little or no resemblance to reality.

No, they are facts that bear a direct resemblance to reality.
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, they are facts that bear a direct resemblance to reality.

What you write about the Constitution is simply at variance with the text. What you write about a so-called consensus among historians is so far off the mark as to be ludicrous.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,868
Reaction score
53,570
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You are wrong. As I said, it isn't part of the original meaning of the second amendment and the right never appears directly in the bill of rights. The second amendment has been given a gloss by the supreme court and has a new meaning now, through case law.

Wrong still:

Bill of Rights Transcript Text
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
As a libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of the right to own property, including guns, without government regulation. I also don't particularly care for guns, which permits me to view the gun issue with objectivity. So many gun rights supporters are gun owners who have a highly emotionally charged stake in the matter.

So, with my unique objecitivity to be able to sort through to nonsensical ideas put forward by the pro gun side, here are a few undeniable facts:

*The original intent of the second amendment was only to protect the right of the states to maintain a militia from federal infringement. It is a well established historical fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" had a specialized meaning in the eighteenth century related to martial service. No serious historian disputes this.

*There is no individual right to gun ownership specifically spelled out in the constitution; the founders considered that right a part of the infinitude of unwritten natural rights.

*If your primary concen is self defense, owning a gun is, statistically speaking, a really dumb idea. Owning a gun makes you and your loved ones MORE likely to die of gun violence not less.

*All this being said, every person has a moral right to complete and unrestricted ownership of guns, including automatics, including extended magazines. Since 2008, that fundamental right is even recognized under US law.

Now, keep in mind these are facts. You can try to dispute them but it won't do any good. On the contrary, anybody disputing any of the above facts is an enemy of he gun rights cause. Arguing against these facts makes the pro gun side look foolish. So get your facts straight and go forth and support the right to own guns.

Yes, you've gone on ad nauseam about this again and again, your only support being an unsourced op-ed from a judge who is not an historian.

What purpose for this thread other than simple trolling?
 

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,470
Reaction score
32,300
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As a libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of the right to own property, including guns, without government regulation. I also don't particularly care for guns, which permits me to view the gun issue with objectivity. So many gun rights supporters are gun owners who have a highly emotionally charged stake in the matter.

So, with my unique objecitivity to be able to sort through to nonsensical ideas put forward by the pro gun side, here are a few undeniable facts:

*The original intent of the second amendment was only to protect the right of the states to maintain a militia from federal infringement. It is a well established historical fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" had a specialized meaning in the eighteenth century related to martial service. No serious historian disputes this.

*There is no individual right to gun ownership specifically spelled out in the constitution; the founders considered that right a part of the infinitude of unwritten natural rights.

*If your primary concen is self defense, owning a gun is, statistically speaking, a really dumb idea. Owning a gun makes you and your loved ones MORE likely to die of gun violence not less.

*All this being said, every person has a moral right to complete and unrestricted ownership of guns, including automatics, including extended magazines. Since 2008, that fundamental right is even recognized under US law.

Now, keep in mind these are facts. You can try to dispute them but it won't do any good. On the contrary, anybody disputing any of the above facts is an enemy of he gun rights cause. Arguing against these facts makes the pro gun side look foolish. So get your facts straight and go forth and support the right to own guns.

Even though YOU say so yourself? This is one of the most arrogantly pompous posts I've seen in a long time.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
As a libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of the right to own property, including guns, without government regulation. I also don't particularly care for guns, which permits me to view the gun issue with objectivity. So many gun rights supporters are gun owners who have a highly emotionally charged stake in the matter.

So, with my unique objecitivity to be able to sort through to nonsensical ideas put forward by the pro gun side, here are a few undeniable facts:

*The original intent of the second amendment was only to protect the right of the states to maintain a militia from federal infringement. It is a well established historical fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" had a specialized meaning in the eighteenth century related to martial service. No serious historian disputes this.

*There is no individual right to gun ownership specifically spelled out in the constitution; the founders considered that right a part of the infinitude of unwritten natural rights.

*If your primary concen is self defense, owning a gun is, statistically speaking, a really dumb idea. Owning a gun makes you and your loved ones MORE likely to die of gun violence not less.

*All this being said, every person has a moral right to complete and unrestricted ownership of guns, including automatics, including extended magazines. Since 2008, that fundamental right is even recognized under US law.

Now, keep in mind these are facts. You can try to dispute them but it won't do any good. On the contrary, anybody disputing any of the above facts is an enemy of he gun rights cause. Arguing against these facts makes the pro gun side look foolish. So get your facts straight and go forth and support the right to own guns.

I like your objective humor.
 

Lutherf

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
46,035
Reaction score
52,046
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As a libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of the right to own property, including guns, without government regulation. I also don't particularly care for guns, which permits me to view the gun issue with objectivity. So many gun rights supporters are gun owners who have a highly emotionally charged stake in the matter.

So, with my unique objecitivity to be able to sort through to nonsensical ideas put forward by the pro gun side, here are a few undeniable facts:

*The original intent of the second amendment was only to protect the right of the states to maintain a militia from federal infringement. It is a well established historical fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" had a specialized meaning in the eighteenth century related to martial service. No serious historian disputes this.

*There is no individual right to gun ownership specifically spelled out in the constitution; the founders considered that right a part of the infinitude of unwritten natural rights.

*If your primary concen is self defense, owning a gun is, statistically speaking, a really dumb idea. Owning a gun makes you and your loved ones MORE likely to die of gun violence not less.

*All this being said, every person has a moral right to complete and unrestricted ownership of guns, including automatics, including extended magazines. Since 2008, that fundamental right is even recognized under US law.

Now, keep in mind these are facts. You can try to dispute them but it won't do any good. On the contrary, anybody disputing any of the above facts is an enemy of he gun rights cause. Arguing against these facts makes the pro gun side look foolish. So get your facts straight and go forth and support the right to own guns.

So, as a libertarian, you believe that the founders of this nation designed the Constitutional Republic for the purpose of controlling the people and that individual liberty is just fine and dandy as long as the government approves.

Guy, when you hear the term "Social Libertarian" that refers to social issues as opposed to economic ones, not a "socialist kind of libertarian".
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Even though YOU say so yourself? This is one of the most arrogantly pompous posts I've seen in a long time.

You mean, you think, he meant it for real?
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,545
Reaction score
9,078
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You mean, you think, he meant it for real?

He started the thread didn't he?
He said those things didn't he?
You saw his arguments with Willie Orwontee didn't you?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
89,868
Reaction score
53,570
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As a libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of the right to own property, including guns, without government regulation. I also don't particularly care for guns, which permits me to view the gun issue with objectivity. So many gun rights supporters are gun owners who have a highly emotionally charged stake in the matter.

So, with my unique objecitivity to be able to sort through to nonsensical ideas put forward by the pro gun side, here are a few undeniable facts:

*The original intent of the second amendment was only to protect the right of the states to maintain a militia from federal infringement. It is a well established historical fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" had a specialized meaning in the eighteenth century related to martial service. No serious historian disputes this.

*There is no individual right to gun ownership specifically spelled out in the constitution; the founders considered that right a part of the infinitude of unwritten natural rights.

*If your primary concen is self defense, owning a gun is, statistically speaking, a really dumb idea. Owning a gun makes you and your loved ones MORE likely to die of gun violence not less.

*All this being said, every person has a moral right to complete and unrestricted ownership of guns, including automatics, including extended magazines. Since 2008, that fundamental right is even recognized under US law.

Now, keep in mind these are facts. You can try to dispute them but it won't do any good. On the contrary, anybody disputing any of the above facts is an enemy of he gun rights cause. Arguing against these facts makes the pro gun side look foolish. So get your facts straight and go forth and support the right to own guns.

Facts about rights, privileges and freedom:

* A right is not permission to commit crime.

* A privilege is not permission to commit crime.

* Freedom is not a right/privilege to commit crime.

* The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to (ab)use them in the commission of any crime.

* The privilege to drive is not a priviliege to do so drunk, drugged or without regard for the safety of others.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
133,426
Reaction score
43,219
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This thread makes me feel embarrassed for others (well, another), like watching a Spartan Cheerleaders skit from SNL.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,846
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This thread makes me feel embarrassed for others (well, another), like watching a Spartan Cheerleaders skit from SNL.

Tough talk from a guy who has never been able to directly refute any of the points I've made.
 

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
As a libertarian, I am a staunch supporter of the right to own property, including guns, without government regulation. I also don't particularly care for guns, which permits me to view the gun issue with objectivity. So many gun rights supporters are gun owners who have a highly emotionally charged stake in the matter.

So, with my unique objecitivity to be able to sort through to nonsensical ideas put forward by the pro gun side, here are a few undeniable facts:

*The original intent of the second amendment was only to protect the right of the states to maintain a militia from federal infringement. It is a well established historical fact that the phrase "keep and bear arms" had a specialized meaning in the eighteenth century related to martial service. No serious historian disputes this.

*There is no individual right to gun ownership specifically spelled out in the constitution; the founders considered that right a part of the infinitude of unwritten natural rights.

*If your primary concen is self defense, owning a gun is, statistically speaking, a really dumb idea. Owning a gun makes you and your loved ones MORE likely to die of gun violence not less.

*All this being said, every person has a moral right to complete and unrestricted ownership of guns, including automatics, including extended magazines. Since 2008, that fundamental right is even recognized under US law.

Now, keep in mind these are facts. You can try to dispute them but it won't do any good. On the contrary, anybody disputing any of the above facts is an enemy of he gun rights cause. Arguing against these facts makes the pro gun side look foolish. So get your facts straight and go forth and support the right to own guns.

where you there where you privy to the founding fathers discussion on the 2nd amendment? then how in the hell do you know what the original intent of the second amendment was

luckily we have their written words to tell us what their intent was


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
Benjamin Franklin

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776
George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselvesand include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
Richard Henry Lee

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Samuel Adams

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” – Speech in the United States Congress, January 8, 1790; George Washington: A Collection, compiled and edited by W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), Chapter 11
George Washington

“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].” – Proposed Constitution for Virginia – Fair Copy, Section IV: Rights, Private and Public, June 1776; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5); Vol. 2
Thomas Jefferson

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them.” – Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775; The Writings of Thomas Paine, Collected and Edited by Moncure Daniel Conway (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894) Volume 1, Chapter XII
Thomas Paine

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778; “Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,” Jonathan Elliot, editor, vol. 3, pp. 50-53
The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”– Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836, vol. 3, p. 386
Patrick Henry


so who should I believe the ones who wrote debated and signed the dam thing or some pseudo-intellectual who doesn't know crap well you can take your undeniable facts and go to some liberal forums because it wont work here
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,846
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
where you there where you privy to the founding fathers discussion on the 2nd amendment? then how in the hell do you know what the original intent of the second amendment was

luckily we have their written words to tell us what their intent was


“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
Benjamin Franklin

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776
George Mason, co-author of the Second Amendment

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselvesand include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” – Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – Richard Henry Lee, State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
Richard Henry Lee

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Samuel Adams

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” – Speech in the United States Congress, January 8, 1790; George Washington: A Collection, compiled and edited by W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), Chapter 11
George Washington

“[W]hat country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” – Letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].” – Proposed Constitution for Virginia – Fair Copy, Section IV: Rights, Private and Public, June 1776; The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition, Editor: Paul Leicester Ford, (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5); Vol. 2
Thomas Jefferson

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them.” – Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775; The Writings of Thomas Paine, Collected and Edited by Moncure Daniel Conway (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1894) Volume 1, Chapter XII
Thomas Paine

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?” – Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778; “Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution,” Jonathan Elliot, editor, vol. 3, pp. 50-53
The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”– Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1836, vol. 3, p. 386
Patrick Henry


so who should I believe the ones who wrote debated and signed the dam thing or some pseudo-intellectual who doesn't know crap well you can take your undeniable facts and go to some liberal forums because it wont work here
None of the quotes you posted contradicts what I said. The fact that the second amendment originally protected the right of the states to maintain a militia without federal interference is a well known historical fact. See the following article by professor emeritus of American History Garry Wills:

1. Bear Arms. "To bear arms is, in itself, a military term. One does not bear arms against a rabbit. The phrase simply translates the Latin arma ferre. The infinitive ferre, to bear, comes from the verb fero. The plural noun arma explains the plural usage in English ('arms'). One does not 'bear arm.' Latin arma is, etymologically, war 'equipment,' and it has no singular forms. By legal and other channels, arma ferre entered deeply into the European language of war. To bear arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war 'just-borne arms' and a civil war 'self-borne arms.' Even outside the phrase 'bear arms,' much of the noun’s use alone echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma ponere). 'Arms' is a profession that one brother chooses as another chooses law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms. In the singular, English 'arm' often means a component of military force (the artillery arm, the cavalry arm)
2. To keep. Gun advocates read 'to keep and bear' disjunctively, and think the verbs refer to entirely separate activities. 'Keep,' for them, means 'possess personally at home'— a lot to load into one word. To support this entirely fanciful construction, they have to neglect the vast literature on militias. It is precisely in that literature that to-keep-and-bear is a description of one connected process. To understand what 'keep' means in a military context, we must recognize how the description of a local militia’s function was always read in contrast to the role of a standing army. Armies, in the ideology of the time, should not be allowed to keep their equipment in readiness." [...]
In America, the Articles of Confederation required that "every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia sufficiently armed and accoutred shall provide and constantly ready for use, in public stores, number of field pieces and tents, a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and equipage" (equipage being etymological sense of arma). Thus is as erroneous to suppose that "keep" means, of itself, "keep at home" as to think that "arms" means only guns. Patrick Henry tells us, the militia's arms include "regimentals, etc."˜ flags, ensigns, engineering tools, siege apparatus, and other "accoutrements of war.
Some arms could be kept at home, course. Some officers kept their most valuable piece of war equipment, a good cross-country horse, at home, where its upkeep was a daily matter feeding and physical regimen. But military guns were not ideally kept home. When militias were armed, it was, so far as possible, with guns standard issue, interchangeable parts, uniform in their shot, upkeep and performance— the kind of "firelocks" Trenchard wanted kept "in every parish" (not every home)[.]"
http://www.potowmack.org/garwills.html

If you can directly refute these compelling points you might have something. Until then you have NOTHING.
 
Last edited:

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
None of the quotes you posted contradicts what I said. The fact that the second amendment originally protected the right of the states to maintain a militia without federal interference is a well known historical fact. See the following article by professor emeritus of American History Garry Wills:

yes they do

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

A free people ought not only to be armed

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.

The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun

Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves

they are talking about defending one self, family neighbors, property and liberty and the right to own a gun to do so

like a said I will listen to and believe the very ones who wrote debated and signed the second amendment be fore I believe some one else. so your wasting your dam time posting what someone thinks what they meant when it is perfectly clear from their own words what they meant

the authors of the 2nd amendment made it perfectly clear its purpose was so one can protect ones self, family, neighbor, property and liberty from foreign or domestic threats and those threats are just as relevant today as it was 200 years ago
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom