Guns or not Guns

[hoofhearted4]

yea guys. if your not staying at least near the topic....no reason to just randomly flame

 

 

 

also, was he/she a new mod?! it didnt say mod, but im guessing it was...name looks familiar though....

 

 

either way what the mod? said :P

[Lisnpuppy]

yea guys. if your not staying at least near the topic....no reason to just randomly flame

 

 

 

also, was he/she a new mod?! it didnt say mod, but im guessing it was...name looks familiar though....

 

 

either way what the mod? said :P

 

 

Yes I got a promotion and my name is familiar because I have been here four years. Also its SHE. :thumbsup:

[marharth]

Freedom was the objective in the Revolution and it was achieved with both the pen and the sword, neither would have succeeded on their own. Question answered.

I find it a bit silly people think you can have a revolution without violence now days. I agree with you.

 

The government and corporations we have now days are far too powerful for peaceful protests. If the people in power don't like something they can just use the media to convince everyone otherwise.

 

The main reason the second amendment was made was so we had a militia in case of a invasion, or if we required to have a revolution later on. The second amendment directly mentions a militia, and not anything about using weapons for protection. People seem to forget this. The main intent of the founding fathers was to have a citizen military, not to have guns around to protect yourself. The whole protection thing is great and all, but it is not the purpose of the amendment.

 

As much as some people hate it you have to get rid of a few people to have peace.

 

lets break it down shall we.

"The right to 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" - 2nd Amendment, US Constitution

 

the first part says we as a people have the right to form a militia for the protection of our freedoms. this does apply to invasion yes, but it was really pointing to the government, that we have a right to protect ourselves from Tyrants.

 

the next part says we are able to have guns in our house (keep) or on our persons (bear)....it does not say we can only have guns in the event we need to form a militia, nor does it say you have to be in the militia to own a gun. it says we have the right to have guns. period.

 

lastly ...shall not be infringed. is talking about both previous statements. our right to a militia and our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

 

also, militia isnt defined by numbers. one person can be his own militia. as such, even if what you say were to be taken as true, that the second amendment only correlates to a militia, it would still then apply to every person in the US because he or she could be their own militia.

I think you misunderstood me.

 

I said that the constitution specifically mentions a militia, and does not specifically mention using arms for self protection. That is why I think the militia part is more important. I am not saying that the constitution says you can not own guns.

 

Also @Aurielius if you are going to mention something in a debate how about you back in up with proof instead of throwing insults at people and ignoring the argument? His motive is that he wants to know what the hell you were talking about when you said Gandhi was violent, it has nothing to do with derailing the topic. You are obviously trying to avoid the question. Since a huge part of this topic is if guns should be allowed for revolutionary purposes, I think that it is pretty reasonable to mention what you were talking about instead of avoiding the question and acting like an egomaniac.

 

Also who wants to play a drinking game, count how many times Aurielius says droll and yawn :biggrin:

Edited February 1, 2012 by marharth

[grannywils]

Well I am not a mod, but I too agree with what "the mod" said. Some of Ghogiel's language was a tad offensive to me, and trust me, I do not offend easily. By the way, congratulations, LisnPuppy. I did not know you had been promoted. I will definitely have to start minding my P's and Q's now!! :unsure:

[marharth]

Well I am not a mod, but I too agree with what "the mod" said. Some of Ghogiel's language was a tad offensive to me, and trust me, I do not offend easily. By the way, congratulations, LisnPuppy. I did not know you had been promoted. I will definitely have to start minding my P's and Q's now!! :unsure:

Funny that you didn't find anything Aurielius said offensive, but okay.

[hoofhearted4]

Yes I got a promotion and my name is familiar because I have been here four years. Also its SHE. :thumbsup:

 

ahh. makes sense. ive seen your posts around, but you werent a mod at the time!...well congrats on the new positions! you got a lot to live up to in regards to all the other awesome mods on here :thumbsup:

 

 

Freedom was the objective in the Revolution and it was achieved with both the pen and the sword, neither would have succeeded on their own. Question answered.

I find it a bit silly people think you can have a revolution without violence now days. I agree with you.

 

The government and corporations we have now days are far too powerful for peaceful protests. If the people in power don't like something they can just use the media to convince everyone otherwise.

 

The main reason the second amendment was made was so we had a militia in case of a invasion, or if we required to have a revolution later on. The second amendment directly mentions a militia, and not anything about using weapons for protection. People seem to forget this. The main intent of the founding fathers was to have a citizen military, not to have guns around to protect yourself. The whole protection thing is great and all, but it is not the purpose of the amendment.

 

As much as some people hate it you have to get rid of a few people to have peace.

 

lets break it down shall we.

"The right to 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" - 2nd Amendment, US Constitution

 

the first part says we as a people have the right to form a militia for the protection of our freedoms. this does apply to invasion yes, but it was really pointing to the government, that we have a right to protect ourselves from Tyrants.

 

the next part says we are able to have guns in our house (keep) or on our persons (bear)....it does not say we can only have guns in the event we need to form a militia, nor does it say you have to be in the militia to own a gun. it says we have the right to have guns. period.

 

lastly ...shall not be infringed. is talking about both previous statements. our right to a militia and our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

 

also, militia isnt defined by numbers. one person can be his own militia. as such, even if what you say were to be taken as true, that the second amendment only correlates to a militia, it would still then apply to every person in the US because he or she could be their own militia.

You misunderstood me.

 

I said that the constitution specifically mentions a militia, and does not specifically mention using arms for self protection. That is why I think the militia part is more important. I am not saying that the constitution says you can not own guns.

 

but, the militia is for protection. the militia would be to protect the citizens from the government or another threat. and as i said, since any person can be a militiaman, then any person could protect themselves from another threat, with the use of guns.

 

 

also, the militia reference and the gun reference are two parts of the sentence. the gun part doesnt reference the militia part, nor does the militia part reference the gun part....if we take it for what it doesnt say, then all we have is the right to bear arms, but never use them. the amendment also doesnt say we have the right to shoot them in our back yard, at animals, or at any other time or occasion.

[marharth]

 

but, the militia is for protection. the militia would be to protect the citizens from the government or another threat. and as i said, since any person can be a militiaman, then any person could protect themselves from another threat, with the use of guns.

 

 

also, the militia reference and the gun reference are two parts of the sentence. the gun part doesnt reference the militia part, nor does the militia part reference the gun part....if we take it for what it doesnt say, then all we have is the right to bear arms, but never use them. the amendment also doesnt say we have the right to shoot them in our back yard, at animals, or at any other time or occasion.

I see your point, but didn't the founding fathers want to ensure the right to arms in case of a revolution? Surely they cared about that more then just protection.

[Marxist ßastard]

Well what ever tactics I am playing at are still to be determined, but you're obviously just making nonsensical statements and then shooting smoke out your ass when someone asks WTF you are actually on about. It's your prerogative if you just want to be a douche.

Ooh, you're playing a dangerous game. Be careful, or he might call you droll again!

 

The right to 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

 

the first part says we as a people have the right to form a militia for the protection of our freedoms

 

the next part says we are able to have guns in our house (keep) or on our persons (bear)

 

one person can be his own militia... every person in the US... could be their own militia

There aren't multiple independent "parts"; it's just a free modifier acting on a related main clause. And on inspection, you changed a well regulated militia to the right to a well regulated militia, so shame on you. This is clearer if you start from the actual text and then change the free modifier into a subordinate clause:

        Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's a cause-and-effect relationship: The subordinate clause modifies the main clause, and conversely the main clause cannot stand without the subordinate clause. If the Framers intended for the right... to keep and bear arms to stand alone, they wouldn't have modified it with a well-regulated militia – or as Chief Justice John Marshall put it in 1803, “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect.”

 

So what is a militia, how is it regulated, and why is it necessary to the security of a free state? In 1828 Webster defined militia thus: “The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies.” And in 1776, Adam Smith stated it comprises those who “join in some measure the trade of a soldier to whatever other trade or profession they may happen to carry on.” That is, not all of a country's citizens, but an organized force of citizen soldiers. And such a force is regulated by Article I, section 8 of the Constitution which allows Congress to organize and fund the militia, while the States train its members and appoint its officers. Congress used that power in organizing the National Guard. The National Guard is the militia; no other group or person may claim that title. The part about the militia being necessary to the security of a free state calls back to the language of Madison's Federalist 46, in which he claims that such a force would counter the Federal standing army, thus preventing Congress from imposing itself on the States by military force. It has nothing to do with such things as hunting or defending your home.

 

And what does it mean to keep and bear arms? It's an idiom meaning to go soldiering. The Oxford English Dictionary in 1888 said as much: “to be engaged in hostilities.” Webster's in 1934 was even plainer: “to serve as a soldier.” The Declaration of Independence attests: “bear arms against their country.” Or from a governor's proclamation in 1776: “bear Arms against the Rebels in this Province.” Or from the Massachusetts Constitution: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.” The term referred to military contexts; it was not used in the context of hunting or self-defense. As historian Garry Wills put it in 1995, “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.” Bearing arms means fighting a war. In the context of Federalist 46, it means staging an armed resistance against a Federal action using the standing army. Again, it has nothing to do with such things as hunting or defending your home.

 

If the Framers had intended for everyone to have a completely unlimited right to keep firearms and carry them at all times, they would've phrased it exactly that way. They wouldn't have qualified it by talking about the National Guard first. And they could've used language proposed in the anti-Federalists' minority report, which would've explicitly stated a right to keep, carry, and use arms for hunting and self-defense. Instead, the Framers rejected that and went with the less inclusive wording above. It's only now that activist judges are blatantly misinterpreting the Constitution and allowing people too regressive even in 1789 to get their way.

[Ghogiel]

congrats linspuppy, I agree with what you said and won't just have make a bait comment after you have said not too do so.

[hoofhearted4]

 

but, the militia is for protection. the militia would be to protect the citizens from the government or another threat. and as i said, since any person can be a militiaman, then any person could protect themselves from another threat, with the use of guns.

 

 

also, the militia reference and the gun reference are two parts of the sentence. the gun part doesnt reference the militia part, nor does the militia part reference the gun part....if we take it for what it doesnt say, then all we have is the right to bear arms, but never use them. the amendment also doesnt say we have the right to shoot them in our back yard, at animals, or at any other time or occasion.

I see your point, but didn't the founding fathers want to ensure the right to arms in case of a revolution? Surely they cared about that more then just protection.

 

i think its one in the same. protecting ourselves from our government is still protecting ourselves.