[W:898]The Right To keep and Bear Arms Is Quite Clear:

[Napoleon]

One of the silliest arguments I see in gun debates are ones where people try to avoid what the founders INTENDED the second amendment should do by attacking their belief in natural rights.

Its a specious collateral attack and does nothing to uundermine the fact that the founders intended the second to guarantee a right of self defense to citizens-whether they were eligible/able to serve in the militia or not.

It isn’t specious to point out the fallaciousness of so-called “natural rights.” That aside, if the founders intended the right to be separate and distinct from military service then they wouldn’t have predicated it on the need for military service in the text. They could just as easily have said the right was natural and cannot be infringed and left it at that. But that isn’t what they did in word or deed.

 

[Glitch]

I don't agree with Napolean. Not in any way whatsoever.

Except you do apparently agree with him:

Joe public cannot legally perform the duties an 18th century person would understand them to be. He’s part of a militia in name only.

Okay, so we agree that Joe Public is not in the militia. Thanks.

 

[Beowulf]

It isn’t specious to point out the fallaciousness of so-called “natural rights.” That aside, if the founders intended the right to be separate and distinct from military service then they wouldn’t have predicated it on the need for military service in the text.

We don't need to rely upon natural rights. We can simply rely upon the written law. What language in the constitution gives congress the power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess?

 

[Beowulf]

Except you do apparently agree with him:

So now I guess you're not going to like me. Wait, I'm crying a little...

 

[TurtleDude]

It isn’t specious to point out the fallaciousness of so-called “natural rights.” That aside, if the founders intended the right to be separate and distinct from military service then they wouldn’t have predicated it on the need for military service in the text. They could just as easily have said the right was natural and cannot be infringed and left it at that. But that isn’t what they did in word or deed.

Its a worthless argument given the second-the founders believed men had a natural right to self defense and with it, the means to effectuate that right. Whether that is true or not, ceased to be relevant when they enacted the second amendment which cemented that right into our primary set of laws.

 

[Glitch]

So now I guess you're not going to like me. Wait, I'm crying a little...

You say one thing, then tell me the exact opposite. Was that to gain my trust, or demonstrate your ignorance?

 

[Napoleon]

Its a worthless argument given the second-the founders believed men had a natural right to self defense and with it, the means to effectuate that right. Whether that is true or not, ceased to be relevant when they enacted the second amendment which cemented that right into our primary set of laws.

Except the second amendment doesn’t say anything about self-defense. It does single out a need for military service as its purpose. A need that no longer exists since a standing army was established and Congress basically ignores the Constitutional restriction on funding such a thing in Article 1.

 

[TurtleDude]

We don't need to rely upon natural rights. We can simply rely upon the written law. What language in the constitution gives congress the power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess?

This-and the anti individual rights argument cannot handle that point, so it engages in a side show of claiming the founders were wrong to believe a creator endowed people with a given right. That's worthless because once the founders created the second, the right was guaranteed by our laws even if "God" didn't endow us with it

the only reason we study and understand NATURAL LAW is to interpret accurately what the FOUNDERS intended. And anyone who ACTUALLY understands and honestly reports what the founders INTENDED-has to support an individual right that does not require membership or service in a governmental entity in order for the right to vest.

 

[Beowulf]

You say one thing, then tell me the exact opposite. Was that to gain my trust, or demonstrate your ignorance?

I'll say to demonstrate my ignorance, if that gets you off my ass.

 

[Beowulf]

This-and the anti individual rights argument cannot handle that point, so it engages in a side show of claiming the founders were wrong to believe a creator endowed people with a given right. That's worthless because once the founders created the second, the right was guaranteed by our laws even if "God" didn't endow us with it

the only reason we study and understand NATURAL LAW is to interpret accurately what the FOUNDERS intended. And anyone who ACTUALLY understands and honestly reports what the founders INTENDED-has to support an individual right that does not require membership or service in a governmental entity in order for the right to vest.

But even forgetting natural law, the constitution is a treaty established between sovereign states. They gave their general government certain enumerated powers. They never their general government any legislative power to restrict what the people of the several states may posses.

 

[TurtleDude]

Except the second amendment doesn’t say anything about self-defense. It does single out a need for military service as its purpose. A need that no longer exists since a standing army was established and Congress basically ignores the Constitutional restriction on funding such a thing in Article 1.

I cannot help it if you pretend that the natural right recognized by the second amendment is something else. that is revisionist nonsense that was created by anti gun activists to support the unconstitutional actions of FDR's administration.

How can a right the founders believed existed prior to government and then RECOGNIZED (not created-see Cruikshank) with the second, would require membership or service in an entity that only existed AFTER the creation of the United States?

 

[Napoleon]

This-and the anti individual rights argument cannot handle that point, so it engages in a side show of claiming the founders were wrong to believe a creator endowed people with a given right. That's worthless because once the founders created the second, the right was guaranteed by our laws even if "God" didn't endow us with it

the only reason we study and understand NATURAL LAW is to interpret accurately what the FOUNDERS intended. And anyone who ACTUALLY understands and honestly reports what the founders INTENDED-has to support an individual right that does not require membership or service in a governmental entity in order for the right to vest.

Actually I’ve already addressed that point. If you want to go along with this ridiculous Congressional classification of non-service members as militia (who aren’t legally permitted to act in that capacity) then the Article 1 power to regulate land forces applies. And it is very broad.

 

[TurtleDude]

But even forgetting natural law, the constitution is a treaty established between sovereign states. They gave their general government certain enumerated powers. They never their general government any legislative power to restrict what the people of the several states may posses.

The tenth amendment argument tends to be hated by the anti gun left. If the tenth amendment was actually taken seriously, most of the New Deal never would have survived judicial review.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually I’ve already addressed that point. If you want to go along with this ridiculous Congressional classification of non-service members as militia (who aren’t legally permitted to act in that capacity) then the Article 1 power to regulate land forces applied. And it is very broad.

Remind me where in the constitution, the founders even hinted at a federal power to regulate privately owned firearms by those acting with the boundaries of the several states?

 

[Beowulf]

The tenth amendment argument tends to be hated by the anti gun left. If the tenth amendment was actually taken seriously, most of the New Deal never would have survived judicial review.

I'm not making a tenth amendment argument.

I'm making an article I, section 8 argument. That is the section that lists congress's legislative powers. There is no legislative power listed that allows congress to restrict what the people of the several states may possess.

 

[Beowulf]

Actually I’ve already addressed that point. If you want to go along with this ridiculous Congressional classification of non-service members as militia (who aren’t legally permitted to act in that capacity) then the Article 1 power to regulate land forces applies. And it is very broad.

Can you please cite the exact language?

 

[Napoleon]

I cannot help it if you pretend that the natural right recognized by the second amendment is something else. that is revisionist nonsense that was created by anti gun activists to support the unconstitutional actions of FDR's administration.

How can a right the founders believed existed prior to government and then RECOGNIZED (not created-see Cruikshank) with the second, would require membership or service in an entity that only existed AFTER the creation of the United States?

The founders thought a lot of things. What they were willing to commit to law - Constitutional and otherwise - is the conclusion and ultimate intent of those thoughts made the abiding truth. In this case, it was to predicate a right to bear arms on the need for military service.

 

[Glitch]

The tenth amendment argument tends to be hated by the anti gun left. If the tenth amendment was actually taken seriously, most of the New Deal never would have survived judicial review.

Most of the New Deal bills didn't survive. Of the 15 New Deal programs FDR wanted, 11 of them were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Why do you think FDR wanted to stack the Supreme Court?

 

[Beowulf]

The founders thought a lot of things. What they were willing to commit to law - Constitutional and otherwise - is the conclusion and ultimate intent of thpse thoughts. In this case, it was to predicate a right to bear arms on the need for military service.

Do you understand that the states, when they established their union between themselves, gave their general government only a small set of legislative powers?

 

[TurtleDude]

The founders thought a lot of things. What they were willing to commit to law - Constitutional and otherwise - is the conclusion and ultimate intent of those thoughts made the abiding truth. In this case, it was to predicate a right to bear arms on the need for military service.

which is revisionist nonsense that only started appearing after the FDR nonsense was created.

 

[Napoleon]

which is revisionist nonsense that only started appearing after the FDR nonsense was created.

Why is it revisionist nonsense to point out that, of all the documented commentary and debate, what the founders intended to be the abiding truth is that which they chose to incorporate into the Constitution and subsequent legislation? Why rely on commentary that didn’t make the cut, i.e. which they made a conscious decision to exclude?

 

[Beowulf]

Why is it revisionist nonsense to point out that, of all the documented commentary and debate, what the founders intended to be the abiding truth is that which they chose to incorporate into the Constitution and subsequent legislation?

Where did the founders incorporate any language that would prohibit the people of the several states from possessing arms?

 

[Napoleon]

Where did the founders incorporate any language that would prohibit the people of the several states from possessing arms?

Stop asking if you’re going to ignore the answer I’ve already given.

 

[Beowulf]

Stop asking if you’re going to ignore the answer I’ve already given.

You cited the language? Where?

 

[TurtleDude]

Why is it revisionist nonsense to point out that, of all the documented commentary and debate, what the founders intended to be the abiding truth is that which they chose to incorporate into the Constitution and subsequent legislation?

I cannot find a single shred of evidence of any intent of the founders to give the federal government even a hint of a power to regulate what private citizens could own.