• 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

jet57 said:
It still tells us that Ronald Reagan was a leftist banneroid.

Just admit it and move on.
Click to expand...


reagan has no relevance to this thread. The second amendment recognizes an individual right =not one that requires military or militia membership
 
OpportunityCost said:
Nah. It's on the money. You use faulty logic over and over in your posts.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What, that Ronald Reagan was a leftist banneroid? Or that you have not a single inkling of what an estate is?
 
jet57 said:
Very conservative... I've often wondered what that is.
Click to expand...

probably someone who understands that shotguns aren't rifles and that AR 15s are not weapons of war?
 
TurtleDude said:
reagan has no relevance to this thread. The second amendment recognizes an individual right =not one that requires military or militia membership
Click to expand...

Sorry, but president Ronald Reagan - in your world - according to your criteria - was a leftist banneroid.

Remember it - live it.
 
jet57 said:
Sorry, but president Ronald Reagan - in your world - according to your criteria - was a leftist banneroid.

Remember it - live it.
Click to expand...

are you trying to divert from all the incorrect things you have said by constantly repeating a worthless description of a man who is long dead and had no real relevance to 2nd Amendment scholarship or case law? The fact is-Reagan did not deliberately attempt to restrict the rights of gun owners while he was president. After he left office and started losing his mental abilities, that deterioration, combined with one of his best friends being relegated to a physical and mental cripple due to Hinkley's bullet, Reagan began supporting silly gun control schemes that wouldn't have stopped Hinkley
 
TurtleDude said:
are you trying to divert from all the incorrect things you have said by constantly repeating a worthless description of a man who is long dead and had no real relevance to 2nd Amendment scholarship or case law? The fact is-Reagan did not deliberately attempt to restrict the rights of gun owners while he was president. After he left office and started losing his mental abilities, that deterioration, combined with one of his best friends being relegated to a physical and mental cripple due to Hinkley's bullet, Reagan began supporting silly gun control schemes that wouldn't have stopped Hinkley
Click to expand...

Wrong again. You must admit your mistake in thinking and readjust your entire world view on guns, because your god Ronald Wilson Reagan was a leftist anti second amendment banneroid, and by default, so was his Wife Nancy. That's just how it is and your NRA leadership, ya'know, the ones got screwed; in more ways than one, by a Russian spy will have to live it too.

Learn it, memorize it, live it.
 
jet57 said:
Wrong again. You must admit your mistake in thinking and readjust your entire world view on guns, because your god Ronald Wilson Reagan was a leftist anti second amendment banneroid, and by default, so was his Wife Nancy. That's just how it is and your NRA leadership, ya'know, the ones got screwed; in more ways than one, by a Russian spy will have to live it too.

Learn it, memorize it, live it.
Click to expand...

this is just nonsense. You are constantly getting corrected on all the erroneous things you have said. I didn't even vote for Reagan in 80. I was the Clark (Libertarian) campaign chairman for New Haven.
 
jet57 said:
What, that Ronald Reagan was a leftist banneroid? Or that you have not a single inkling of what an estate is?
Click to expand...
Much like another poster, I am sure you have an obscure, convoluted definition you wish to argue pedantically over.

I have not called Reagan that, I just disagree with him on this instance. Why do you keep dishonestly straw manning that I have?

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
jet57 said:
Wrong again. You must admit your mistake in thinking and readjust your entire world view on guns, because your god Ronald Wilson Reagan was a leftist anti second amendment banneroid, and by default, so was his Wife Nancy. That's just how it is and your NRA leadership, ya'know, the ones got screwed; in more ways than one, by a Russian spy will have to live it too.

Learn it, memorize it, live it.
Click to expand...
Any time someone tells you what you must do on a forum, they are almost always wrong.

The seething hatred for the NRA, it's almost comical how badly you let it color your commentary.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
TurtleDude said:
reagan has no relevance to this thread. The second amendment recognizes an individual right =not one that requires military or militia membership
Click to expand...

The second Amendment is very clear in it's wording, and the history. The militiamen were scattered throughout the states. They were the National defense. Amendment 2 assured that states could not pass laws to de-arm the militiamen. Others also had the right to bear arms, but it wasn't protected by the Constitution.

The NRA dishonestly doesn't post the militia reference on the engraving on the wall of their headquarters. They don't want people thinking about the militia reference, because they don't want people thinking about that.
 
Media_Truth said:
The second Amendment is very clear in it's wording, and the history. The militiamen were scattered throughout the states. They were the National defense. Amendment 2 assured that states could not pass laws to de-arm the militiamen. Others also had the right to bear arms, but it wasn't protected by the Constitution.

The NRA dishonestly doesn't post the militia reference on the engraving on the wall of their headquarters. They don't want people thinking about the militia reference, because they don't want people thinking about that.
Click to expand...

you again refuse to understand the obvious-the NRA's mission is not to promote Ohio's power to have a militia but rather the fact that the federal government does not properly have a power to restrict the personal arms of private citizens.

You have completely failed to even attempt an understanding of the natural right that underlies the second amendment and you are unable to address the fact that since the founders believed the right they guaranteed with the second-has been with man since the beginning of mankind: thus, this right is not dependent on membership or service in a militia that is formed subsequent to the dawn of man.
 
TurtleDude said:
you again refuse to understand the obvious-the NRA's mission is not to promote Ohio's power to have a militia but rather the fact that the federal government does not properly have a power to restrict the personal arms of private citizens.

You have completely failed to even attempt an understanding of the natural right that underlies the second amendment and you are unable to address the fact that since the founders believed the right they guaranteed with the second-has been with man since the beginning of mankind: thus, this right is not dependent on membership or service in a militia that is formed subsequent to the dawn of man.
Click to expand...

Taking the 2nd Amendment out of context is NOT a service to its members.
 
Media_Truth said:
Taking the 2nd Amendment out of context is NOT a service to its members.
Click to expand...

Its members realize that recognizing that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right not connected to membership is a militia is the proper context.

Does what's written on the wall at NRA Headquarters really matter that much in the big picture? Did it influence SCOTUS? Does it have any legal standing at all? It seems picayune to spend this much energy on it.
 
Rucker61 said:
Its members realize that recognizing that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right not connected to membership is a militia is the proper context.

Does what's written on the wall at NRA Headquarters really matter that much in the big picture? Did it influence SCOTUS? Does it have any legal standing at all? It seems picayune to spend this much energy on it.
Click to expand...

bashing the NRA due to the candidates they support is what motivates much of the leftist gun control efforts
 
jet57 said:
Wrong again. You must admit your mistake in thinking and readjust your entire world view on guns, because your god Ronald Wilson Reagan was a leftist anti second amendment banneroid, and by default, so was his Wife Nancy. That's just how it is and your NRA leadership, ya'know, the ones got screwed; in more ways than one, by a Russian spy will have to live it too.

Learn it, memorize it, live it.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Strawman fallacy. Redirection fallacy.
 
Media_Truth said:
The second Amendment is very clear in it's wording, and the history. The militiamen were scattered throughout the states. They were the National defense. Amendment 2 assured that states could not pass laws to de-arm the militiamen. Others also had the right to bear arms, but it wasn't protected by the Constitution.

The NRA dishonestly doesn't post the militia reference on the engraving on the wall of their headquarters. They don't want people thinking about the militia reference, because they don't want people thinking about that.
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment does not require the militia for the people's right to bear arms.
 
Into the Night said:
The NRA is not taking the 2nd amendment out of context. It simply supports one of the two rights discussed in it.
Click to expand...

If I say - "Our Military is getting weak, we need to better fund them", are those sentences related? If either of these clauses were to stand alone, the context would have a totally different meaning. And that is what you are doing with the 2nd Amendment.
 
Media_Truth said:
If I say - "Our Military is getting weak, we need to better fund them", are those sentences related? If either of these clauses were to stand alone, the context would have a totally different meaning. And that is what you are doing with the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

nonsense-and you have never been able to explain how a right-a right that the founders believed existed from the earliest dawn of man and then recognized by the second-could possibly need membership in a government created organization to vest
 
TurtleDude said:
nonsense-and you have never been able to explain how a right-a right that the founders believed existed from the earliest dawn of man and then recognized by the second-could possibly need membership in a government created organization to vest
Click to expand...

Do I have to explain history to you? The militia of the late 1700s was not an organized military like we have today. It was individuals throughout the states, who had their latest-grade weapons at their disposal. There wasn't boot-camp training. There wasn't a draft. Their right to keep their weapons was the security of our free state.
 
Media_Truth said:
Do I have to explain history to you? The militia of the late 1700s was not an organized military like we have today. It was individuals throughout the states, who had their latest-grade weapons at their disposal. There wasn't boot-camp training. There wasn't a draft. Their right to keep their weapons was the security of our free state.
Click to expand...

how does a right that the founders believe was vested in man by the creator and long before government existed, now require membership in a government run militia to vest?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom