• 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]

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.

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.

that's a good post, those in fear of firearms should never be forced to own them and indeed, i advise such people to not obtain them. That is how it should be-we who are well trained and familiar with such devices should own many of them and use them regularly while the timid should seek comfort in knowing that the scumbags of the criminal world usually cannot tell who is packing and who is afraid to
 
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.

The fact that the second amendment was, historically, related to a militia has been proved beyond a doubt. Nobody has even made a serious effort to argue against the Garry Wills article that provides incredibly strong historical evidence towards this point. So you are clearly wrong there.

Also, as a matter of statistical fact, you are wrong about gun safety. Having a gun in the home increase the likelihood of gun-related death for EVERYBODY. You may not like this fact, but it is a fact, and it is very, very stupid to deny it.
 
They're your own opinions.

No, they are facts.

But don't feel bad, you made a common mistake. Common in this subforum, anyway. For the vast majority of people, these facts are well-known.
 
No, they are facts.

But don't feel bad, you made a common mistake. Common in this subforum, anyway. For the vast majority of people, these facts are well-known.

I do not know why Guy feels so compelled to share his fever dreams so often.
 
No, they are facts.

But don't feel bad, you made a common mistake. Common in this subforum, anyway. For the vast majority of people, these facts are well-known.

No, they are your own personal opinions. You claiming your opinions to be facts does not make it so. All you ever do here is post thinly veiled judgments and insults, then cry when things don't go your way, so cry me a river. If you don't like the people here, simply go way.
 
Last edited:
No, they are your own personal opinions.

Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. I have opinions. I like jazz music. In my opinion it's the best genre of music. This is subjective.

But none of the bullet points in the OP are opinions. They are all statements of fact. They are objective statements. They are factual, they describe how the world actually is.

You claiming your opinions to be facts does not make it so. All you ever do here is post thinly veiled judgments and insults, then cry when things don't go your way, so cry me a river. If you don't like the people here, simply go way.

I like everybody here! I like you! Don't take things so personally.

Start facing up to the facts I outlined in the OP and you'll be a better person for it. See, if I didn't like you so much, I wouldn't bother sharing that little tip with you.
 
The fact that the second amendment was, historically, related to a militia has been proved beyond a doubt. Nobody has even made a serious effort to argue against the Garry Wills article that provides incredibly strong historical evidence towards this point. So you are clearly wrong there.

Also, as a matter of statistical fact, you are wrong about gun safety. Having a gun in the home increase the likelihood of gun-related death for EVERYBODY. You may not like this fact, but it is a fact, and it is very, very stupid to deny it.

dozens of academics with credentials far superior than a guy who has a doctorate in classics rebut the idiocy you have latched on to as your messiah. Its sort of like another gun hater who latched on to a fourth rate guy named Bogus
 
Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. I have opinions. I like jazz music. In my opinion it's the best genre of music. This is subjective.

But none of the bullet points in the OP are opinions. They are all statements of fact. They are objective statements. They are factual, they describe how the world actually is.



I like everybody here! I like you! Don't take things so personally.

Start facing up to the facts I outlined in the OP and you'll be a better person for it. See, if I didn't like you so much, I wouldn't bother sharing that little tip with you.

the more bogus your opinion the more likely you are to claim its undisputed fact.

Its fun watching those of us who know destroy your need to pretend you do
 
Facts are facts, opinions are opinions. I have opinions. I like jazz music. In my opinion it's the best genre of music. This is subjective.

But none of the bullet points in the OP are opinions. They are all statements of fact. They are objective statements. They are factual, they describe how the world actually is.



I like everybody here! I like you! Don't take things so personally.

Start facing up to the facts I outlined in the OP and you'll be a better person for it. See, if I didn't like you so much, I wouldn't bother sharing that little tip with you.

Facts are facts when you have factual information to back up it up. All that you have are opinions.

fact
fakt/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts

1.
a thing that is indisputably the case.
"she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public"

o·pin·ion

əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions

1.
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Facts are facts when you have factual information to back up it up. All that you have our options

fact
fakt/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts

1.
a thing that is indisputably the case.
"she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public"

o·pin·ion

əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions

1.
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Guy's posts aren't uttered to educate or even debate. He ignores the posters who smash his nonsense the worst. ITs all about something far more disturbing. I love the pronouncements of fact that are poorly reasoned opinion from someone who has no expertise on the subject
 
Facts are facts when you have factual information to back up it up. All that you have are opinions.

fact
fakt/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts

1.
a thing that is indisputably the case.
"she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public"

o·pin·ion

əˈpinyən/
noun
noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions

1.
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

There's plenty of evidence to back those facts up. I have posted a Garry Wills article that provides ample evidence for my point about original intent of the second amendment, and so far nobody has managed to even attempt a cogent argument against Wills's points.

As for the statistical dangerousness of guns, the evidence is so widespread and damning it is practically common knowledge (to anybody besides a gun nut that is). From a safety perspective, owning a gun is more dangerous than it is worth.
 
There's plenty of evidence to back those facts up. I have posted a Garry Wills article that provides ample evidence for my point about original intent of the second amendment, and so far nobody has managed to even attempt a cogent argument against Wills's points.

As for the statistical dangerousness of guns, the evidence is so widespread and damning it is practically common knowledge (to anybody besides a gun nut that is). From a safety perspective, owning a gun is more dangerous than it is worth.

Owning a gun and being stupid with gun is more than its worth. Just owning a gun is no danger.
 
As for the statistical dangerousness of guns, the evidence is so widespread and damning it is practically common knowledge (to anybody besides a gun nut that is). From a safety perspective, owning a gun is more dangerous than it is worth.



Meaning you can't prove it, so you'll just act incredulous that anyone doubts it.
 
Meaning you can't prove it, so you'll just act incredulous that anyone doubts it.

He finds one fringe academic-whose PhD isn't relevant to the discussion (He teaches CLASSICS, not constitutional law or history) and pretends it is all that matters so he can make his personally needy, grand pronouncements and then pretend no one can dispute his need to be seen as an authority
 
There's plenty of evidence to back those facts up. I have posted a Garry Wills article that provides ample evidence for my point about original intent of the second amendment, and so far nobody has managed to even attempt a cogent argument against Wills's points.

As for the statistical dangerousness of guns, the evidence is so widespread and damning it is practically common knowledge (to anybody besides a gun nut that is). From a safety perspective, owning a gun is more dangerous than it is worth.

Buckley hired him as a drama critic. Looks like he created more drama than he criticized. :lol:
 
The facts about the second amendment and gun rights

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.

One wide sweeping unsupported claim that is completely busted upon the first statement of "intent." The Supreme Court disagrees, and states it is the right of the individual. The Supreme Court are not some blogger, 3rd rate history professor, or a left wing media source. They are people who have been in the field of law since long before I was born, and have dedicated their lives to the study. Oh. And they present us with the end interpretation of what a law means. They say it is for the individual, then it is. There is no "subjectivity" in that anymore. It is an iron clad fact backed by the Highest law in the land.

There can be no serious discussion on this topic of whose right is protected by the second, because it is stated clearly by the only Authority on the issue that matters, and they say it is the individual.
 
Last edited:
The Supreme Court disagrees, and states it is the right of the individual.

That's just silly. First of all, it was a 5-4 decision. And Scalia's opinion in Heller was highly partisan and scandalously bad in its "law office history." The historical inaccuracies in the Heller opinion make it an academic laughingstock. That's a bad thing for gun rights. If you really do care about gun rights, then you should want them to be based on something stronger than a partisan snow job based on false history.

The Supreme Court are not some blogger, 3rd rate history professor, or a left wing media source.


Garry Wills is a first rate history professor. But he's not the only one. Off the top of my head, I can think of another first rate professor, Saul Cornell, and a first rate legal scholar, Richard Posner, who agree with Wills. Not to mention four Supreme Court Justices.
 
This thread is a perfect example of why guns cannot be discussed with any reason.
 
This thread is a perfect example of why guns cannot be discussed with any reason.

Yeah, gun nuts tend fly off the handle whenever anybody calls into question their cherished myths.
 
What you don't understand is that keeping a gun in the home is "being stupid with a gun."



That's not what the evidence says.

sorry the opinions of someone completely ignorant about gun use and who is afraid to own a gun really has no value to those of us who own guns.

The evidence says-you are far better off being armed when attacked then not being armed
 
Buckley hired him as a drama critic. Looks like he created more drama than he criticized. :lol:

Buckley hired him because, like Buckley, he was a major league toady of the Papistry
 
That's just silly. First of all, it was a 5-4 decision. And Scalia's opinion in Heller was highly partisan and scandalously bad in its "law office history." The historical inaccuracies in the Heller opinion make it an academic laughingstock. That's a bad thing for gun rights. If you really do care about gun rights, then you should want them to be based on something stronger than a partisan snow job based on false history.




Garry Wills is a first rate history professor. But he's not the only one. Off the top of my head, I can think of another first rate professor, Saul Cornell, and a first rate legal scholar, Richard Posner, who agree with Wills. Not to mention four Supreme Court Justices.

Cornell is a paid slurper of the Joyce foundation. The Joyce Foundation paid Cornell to whine about guns. He is not a first rate professor. Posner is a guy who revels in being seen as a loose cannon who is enigmatic or erratic. The four USSC Justices are predictable left wing votes.
 
Back
Top Bottom