• 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]

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


“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.

arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property

Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves

they are talking about defending one self, family neighbors, property and liberty

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
You clearly do not have the understanding to read the founders writings in historical context to be able to make sense of them.

Since you can't refute the points made in Garry Wills article you have effectively conceded the argument.

By the way, your avatar is a violation of Flag Code. Shame on you.
 
yes they do



they are talking about defending one self, family neighbors, property and liberty

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

Here is another passage from Garry Wills that debunks your very poorly made argument:

That amendment, as Madison first moved it, read:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. 8
The whole sentence looks to military matters, the second clause giving the reason for the right’s existence, and the third giving an exception to that right. The connection of the parts can be made obvious by using the same structure to describe other rights. One could say, for instance: "The right of free speech shall not be infringed; an open exchange of views giving the best security to intellectual liberty; but no person shall be free to commit libel." Every part is explained in relation to every other part. The third clause makes certain what Madison means in this place by "bear arms." He is not saying that Quakers, who oppose war, will not be allowed to use guns for hunting or sport.

Try to refute that, if you dare.
 
What does "well armed" mean to you?

I'm not interested in indulging your attempt at a Socratic argument. Have you got something to directly refute Wills or not?
 
Here is another passage from Garry Wills that debunks your very poorly made argument:



Try to refute that, if you dare.

I don't give a flying rats ass what some pseudo-intellectual liberal authors opinion is im believing the very people who wrote debated and signed the dam thing
 
I'm not interested in indulging your attempt at a Socratic argument. Have you got something to directly refute Wills or not?

Geeze. Frankly, one persons opinion doesn't get me too excited. I was just interested in your opinion.

I guess I'll leave you to your BS argument.

Good luck.
 
I don't give a flying rats ass what some pseudo-intellectual liberal authors opinion is im believing the very people who wrote debated and signed the dam thing

You are wrong yet again. Garry Wills is a highly regarded CONSERVATIVE intellectual.
 
Geeze. Frankly, one persons opinion doesn't get me too excited. I was just interested in your opinion.

I guess I'll leave you to your BS argument.

Good luck.

I'll take that as a no.
 
The facts about the second amendment and gun rights

Looks like Willie needs to tug a little harder on Guy's leash.....again!
 
You are wrong yet again. Garry Wills is a highly regarded CONSERVATIVE intellectual.

wrong again

However, during the 1960s and 1970s, driven by his coverage of both civil rights and the anti-Vietnam War movements, Wills became increasingly liberal. His biography of president Richard M. Nixon, Nixon Agonistes (1970) landed him on the master list of Nixon political opponents.[14] He supported Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election, but declared two years later that Obama's presidency had been a "terrible disappointment". [15

Garry Wills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

are you so mentally handicap that you have to have some pseudo-intellectual liberal author with his opinion tell you what something meant when you can read the writings of the very people who wrote debated and signed it and come to your own conclusion and anyone with a 5th grade education can come to the rightful conclusion what the authors of the constitution meant by reading what they had to say about it when it was being sold to the states
 
Last edited:
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.

There is so much disinformation and pompous nonsense in this tripe Its hard to know where to start

1) you aren't a libertarian guy-you are a contrarian. You don't view anything objectively, rather your posts make arrogant pronouncements that you won't back up but rather pretend they are indisputable.

2) The original intent of the second amendment was to recognize the natural right of citizens to be armed for their individual and common defense. Along with that primary directive was the captain obvious acknowledgement that people could be armed for less important reasons such as hunting

3) there is no delegation of power to the federal government that is in derogation of the right assumed to exist-that of individuals to possess arms. The second amendment merely affirmed that right

4) someone like you is in no position to lecture others on the risks to owning guns. Every study that has even a semblance of legitimacy has found that citizens being armed decreases crime and increases the weapon owner's chances of surviving a violent criminal encounter.

You haven't posted any facts, you just make stupid claims that have no basis in reality

So get SOME ACTUAL facts before you tell people like me stuff that I know inside out while you do not
 
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.

Willie's dissection of Guy reminds me of King Arthur doing up the black knight. All Guy can do is bleed on him
 
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.

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

that's probably because even with an electron microscope and the best efforts of three crack search and rescue teams, he has been unable to find any such points
 
You are wrong yet again. Garry Wills is a highly regarded CONSERVATIVE intellectual.

and far smarter Liberal intellectual Akhil Reed Amar rejects Wills nonsense. As does far smarter conservatives like David Koppel, Don Kates, John Lott, and Gene Volokh and a few guys named Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas
 
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.

You are not a "Libertarian," because all Libertarians of whatever lean recognize one fundamental truth: the individual is ultimately responsible for the preservation of his own rights and liberties. Your constant arguments for gun control and individual disarmament prove you are unaware of what Libertarian means.

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.

Actually, the original intent of the Second Amendment, as with the other Amendments, was to limit and/or restrict government interference in the rights of American citizens. This has been pointed out to you time and again with information taken directly from the period when the Constitution was being formulated, but you simply continue to ignore it.

*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.

Again, the right to own one does not need to be spelled out "in the Constitution." However, the limitation on government power has been clearly spelled out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

*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.

A matter of opinion, not fact.

*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.

The right of self-defense is a natural right, independent of any "moral" value. It is irrelevant whether or not someone considers my right to bear arms in self-defense is moral or immoral; I will bear arms to defend myself nonetheless. Still, if you truly believd this "fact" then even without your oblique citing of the SCOTUS Heller decision your position is self-refuted.

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.

None of your "facts" are factual. They are merely assertions based upon a limited and fallacious understanding of the issue. I wonder how many more gun control threads you intend to post before you actually start reading the information provided which shows your position has no foundation in reality?
 
Last edited:
Tough talk from a guy who has never been able to directly refute any of the points I've made.

You've never made any. You've only farmed it out to articles written by others, who do the work you wish you could do. And you don't even understand them; if you did, you wouldn't quote things which don't support what you say.
 
As many have said so far, the Constitution doesn't grant rights to the people, it grants rights to the government. That's exactly what the 9th Amendment says. I'd have a right to own a gun even if there wasn't a 2nd Amendment, just as I can own a car, even though there's no car amendment. All property has reasonable restrictions just as guns do, but the right to own them is inherent to being a citizen, not to anything written into the constitution. Any arguments based on the wording of the 2A are ultimately false, since that's not where gun rights stem from.
 
As many have said so far, the Constitution doesn't grant rights to the people, it grants rights to the government. That's exactly what the 9th Amendment says. I'd have a right to own a gun even if there wasn't a 2nd Amendment, just as I can own a car, even though there's no car amendment. All property has reasonable restrictions just as guns do, but the right to own them is inherent to being a citizen, not to anything written into the constitution. Any arguments based on the wording of the 2A are ultimately false, since that's not where gun rights stem from.

By Jove, I think he's got it!
 
By Jove, I think he's got it!

the second amendment merely guarantees an existing right

and contrary to the nonsense you babble, that right is not dependent on being part of an active or organized militia
 
By Jove, I think he's got it!

If you understood a whit of anything you've ever blathered, you'd know that what douglas posted is exactly in line with what WE say, and is contradicted by the nonsense YOU post. But you don't, and hence, you think you've scored here.
 
If you understood a whit of anything you've ever blathered, you'd know that what douglas posted is exactly in line with what WE say, and is contradicted by the nonsense YOU post. But you don't, and hence, you think you've scored here.

Guy tends to hide from those who thrash his nonsense the best or ignore their posts.

But you are right.
 
Guy tends to hide from those who thrash his nonsense the best or ignore their posts.

But you are right.

Yes, he does, and yes, I am.
 
The OP is totally wrong.

..."The right to bear arms SHALL not be abridged."

The reason given (militia) actually is irrelevant in terms of the "SHALL." The government often has preambles stating WHY it is passing a law. HOWEVER, all that matters is what the law says. "SHALL" in law is an absolute term - meaning no exception. That is how ALL laws work.

The prefacing statement is just a statement. It is the rule/law language that matters.

The OP is also wrong that firearms make MY family less safe nor makes me less safe. I would not be alive but for firearms. Nor my oldest daughter. In a totally literal sense. Our firearms are more secured than jewelry stores lock up their gems at night. My wife is even more extensively trained than I am in terms of usage - when and when not.

However, it might be more dangerous for YOU to have a firearm. I don't know about you.
 
Back
Top Bottom