• 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:
Well since it won't do any good to debate this and I would be an enemy of the 2nd.....SAY'S YOU! (>
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.


And then continuing as direct replies to you.





 
And then again in another thread.




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

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.
 

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

Wrong still:

Bill of Rights Transcript Text
 

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?
 

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

I like your objective humor.
 

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".
 
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?
 
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?
 

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.
 
This thread makes me feel embarrassed for others (well, another), like watching a Spartan Cheerleaders skit from SNL.
 
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.
 

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:


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

yes they do


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:
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…