• 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!

[W:1311]The Second Amendment - A Military Right to Bear Arms

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

Michael_Waldman_BrennanCenter.jpg
 

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
9,725
Reaction score
2,316
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

View attachment 67244766

And the militia refers to all able bodied men.
 

Bum

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
10,562
Reaction score
7,347
Location
Home
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And the militia refers to all able bodied men.

I agree. Every individual, male or female, has the right to bear arms, if it is discerned that citizens need to be armed for a military need, such as an invasion.
 

Bum

I survived. Suck it, Schrodinger.
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
10,562
Reaction score
7,347
Location
Home
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I agree. Every individual, male or female, has the right to bear arms, if it is discerned that citizens need to be armed for a military need, such as an invasion.

The citizens already have the right to bear arms.....they are the militia.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,702
Reaction score
6,730
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I agree. Every individual, male or female, has the right to bear arms, if it is discerned that citizens need to be armed for a military need, such as an invasion.

Good thing that Congress disagreed with you, SCOTUS disagreed with you, the legislatures of most of the state's disagreed with you, and history disagrees with you.

At this point you are tilting at windmills.
 

Marvan Buren

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
79
Reaction score
31
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

Exactly. The NRA does not support the Second Amendment - they pervert it in order to carry out their sole purpose of supporting the interests of gun manufacturers. Even worse, they have allowed themselves to become a funnel for Russian money to be used to influence American politics - the exact opposite of what a group supporting the U.S. Constitution should do.
 

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
9,725
Reaction score
2,316
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I agree. Every individual, male or female, has the right to bear arms, if it is discerned that citizens need to be armed for a military need, such as an invasion.

And there always is the threat of invasion, just look at the migrant caravan in Mexico.
 

DebateChallenge

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
9,725
Reaction score
2,316
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Exactly. The NRA does not support the Second Amendment - they pervert it in order to carry out their sole purpose of supporting the interests of gun manufacturers. Even worse, they have allowed themselves to become a funnel for Russian money to be used to influence American politics - the exact opposite of what a group supporting the U.S. Constitution should do.
Number one, your post is full of phoney baloney about the NRA.
Number two, even if what you say about the NRA is true, which it isn't, the fact remains that the NRA is one of the strongest grassroots organization in the USA and gun rights are here to stay.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,542
Reaction score
40,183
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

View attachment 67244766

It is convenient, indeed, to assert that a short barreled shotgun is not a suitable 'militia' gun yet a semi-auto rifle with "military style" features (an "assault rifle") should somehow also be exempt as a 'civilian' gun choice. Which is it - military style/use guns are, or are not, able to be owned and carried by the people under the 2A?
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,420
Reaction score
21,591
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

No, this kind of argument has been debunked over and over both here in this Forum by myself and others, and out in the real world of political discourse.

The clause states "the right of the PEOPLE (not the "Militia") to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If it meant what your argument states, then "People" would have been replaced with "Militia" or some other referent of MILITARY power. In fact your own reference of "the militia being the body of the people" reinforces the ideal that an armed populace is the best defense of the nation, not an organized military force.

The bottom line? The authors wrote exactly what they meant to say, not what you would like to think it means.
 
Last edited:

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
37,755
Reaction score
24,226
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This topic should come up right after grace this afternoon!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
 

dogboy49

Active member
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
337
Reaction score
146
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This topic should come up right after grace this afternoon!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

In my family, the discussions start right after the first bottle of wine is opened. Usually doesn't take long for it to go downhill, either. :argue
 

PleasantValley

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
4,098
Reaction score
1,991
Location
Henderson, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

View attachment 67244766

This is already settled law.
It is an INDIVIDUAL right.
The author needs to do some more studying...but since he studies in NY, I can see why he never learned this fact.

:beatdeadhorse
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,954
Reaction score
16,568
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

View attachment 67244766

Every 2nd amendment opponent has tried that argument and failed. As others have pointed out if the 2nd amendment only applied to the militia then the 2nd amendment would only say the militia the right to keep and bear arms, not the people the right to keep and bear arms.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And the militia refers to all able bodied men.

At one time - yes. But the militia no longer exists and has been replaced by a standing armed forces and professional police forces.
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,702
Reaction score
6,730
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
At one time - yes. But the militia no longer exists and has been replaced by a standing armed forces and professional police forces.

In law, it does still exist, both at the federal and at state levels. In Colorado the militia falls under Article 17 of the state constitution. In Texas it's more active than in most states. Note that the Texas State Guard is not the National Guard as established by Congress.

https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, this kind of argument has been debunked over and over both here in this Forum by myself and others, and out in the real world of political discourse.

The clause states "the right of the PEOPLE (not the "Militia") to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If it meant what your argument states, then "People" would have been replaced with "Militia" or some other referent of MILITARY power. In fact your own reference of "the militia being the body of the people" reinforces the ideal that an armed populace is the best defense of the nation, not an organized military force.

The bottom line? The authors wrote exactly what they meant to say, not what you would like to think it means.

The military is composed of people. The meaning is very clear...
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
25,621
Reaction score
22,290
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
One need look no further than the actual text of the 2nd Amendment to realize that the context is Military, and only Military.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Guns Rights activists love to try to add words to the Second Amendment to fit their viewpoint. The NRA actually dishonestly subtracts words. On the wall of their headquarters is the following quote; "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", omitting the Military reference.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

“A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” This makes the intent very clear.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has cited the Militia reference on a number of occassions. One such case was about a sawed-off-shotgun.

https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

The Supreme Court disagreed, however, saying "in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Further reading - Michael Waldman is President of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the author of the highly acclaimed book, "The Second Amendment - A Biography", which is featured on Goodreads.Com

View attachment 67244766

Tried and failed argument, if it were otherwise we’d be disarmed already.
 

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,648
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Good thing that Congress disagreed with you, SCOTUS disagreed with you, the legislatures of most of the state's disagreed with you, and history disagrees with you.

At this point you are tilting at windmills.

The SCOTUS has been in agreement on a number of occassions.

One of the first rulings came in 1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution.

Although the above ruling was definitely racist, it does challenge the right of each individual to bear arms.
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,047
Reaction score
37,666
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This has already been settled already. The Supreme Court has ruled that citizens have a fundamental right to bear arms. People keep bringing this up like it's supposed to change everything.
 
Top Bottom