Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 06 Apr '15 00:44
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/03/kansas-to-allow-residents-to-carry-concealed-guns-without-permit/

    Without a permit, no training is required.

    This is having a well regulated militia?

    The founders, at least in Boston, required an annual muster, registration of long guns, and demonstration of proficiency.
  2. 06 Apr '15 01:06
    Originally posted by JS357
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/03/kansas-to-allow-residents-to-carry-concealed-guns-without-permit/

    Without a permit, no training is required.

    This is having a well regulated militia?

    The founders, at least in Boston, required an annual muster, registration of long guns, and demonstration of proficiency.
    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Mandatory training, or limitations would constitute an infringement or a limitation on the right.

    As to the "well regulated militia" that is enabled by an armed population, and training or regulation is often available to militiamen in various States independent of the government.

    Any registration in Boston was prior to the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, and Bill of Rights. A person has the presumed right to self defense, which is the basis for keeping and bearing arms, and the duty or privilege of militia participation is entirely separate.
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    06 Apr '15 01:08
    The conservative view on guns has nothing to do with concern for Constitutional rights. It's a matter of men wanting to keep their toys.
  4. 06 Apr '15 01:16
    Originally posted by vivify
    The conservative view on guns has nothing to do with concern for Constitutional rights. It's a matter of men wanting to keep their toys.
    Except for the Constitutional protection, men would not be able "to keep their toys".
  5. Standard member vivify
    rain
    06 Apr '15 01:26 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Except for the Constitutional protection, men would not be able "to keep their toys".
    Still doesn't mean gun supporters actually care about the Constitution or the original intent of the Forefathers. It just so happens that the Second Amendment let's them keep their sticks that go boom. Hypothetically, if it could be proven that the Constitution didn't allow for private gun ownership, it wouldn't change a thing. The right is simply in love with their guns.
  6. Standard member vivify
    rain
    06 Apr '15 01:34
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Mandatory training, or limitations would constitute an infringement or a limitation on the
    Does this mean you don't support any gun regulations, since any regulation could be considered an infringement?
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Apr '15 01:41
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Mandatory training, or limitations would constitute an infringement or a limitation on the right.

    As to the "well regulated militia" that is enabled by an armed population, and training or regulation is often available to militiamen in various States independent of the governmen ...[text shortened]... eping and bearing arms, and the duty or privilege of militia participation is entirely separate.
    norm: Mandatory training, or limitations would constitute an infringement or a limitation on the right.

    The Second Congress, largely composed of men who were either at the Constitutional Convention or the State ratifying Conventions didn't agree with you:

    That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

    http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Apr '15 01:54
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Mandatory training, or limitations would constitute an infringement or a limitation on the right.

    As to the "well regulated militia" that is enabled by an armed population, and training or regulation is often available to militiamen in various States independent of the governmen ...[text shortened]... eping and bearing arms, and the duty or privilege of militia participation is entirely separate.
    norm: As to the "well regulated militia" that is enabled by an armed population, and training or regulation is often available to militiamen in various States independent of the government.

    The US Constitution specifically provides that the authority to make rules regarding the training and regulation of the militia resides with the US Congress:

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Article I, Section 8


    Of course, the "militia" in Colonial America was a government created body for which individual participation was generally mandatory for every able bodied male.
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Apr '15 01:57
    Originally posted by JS357
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/03/kansas-to-allow-residents-to-carry-concealed-guns-without-permit/

    Without a permit, no training is required.

    This is having a well regulated militia?

    The founders, at least in Boston, required an annual muster, registration of long guns, and demonstration of proficiency.
    It isn't a militia at all.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    06 Apr '15 02:25
    Carrying out a hit in Kansas or Arizona would be soooo easy...
  11. 06 Apr '15 05:03
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Mandatory training, or limitations would constitute an infringement or a limitation on the right.

    As to the "well regulated militia" that is enabled by an armed population, and training or regulation is often available to militiamen in various States independent of the governmen ...[text shortened]... eping and bearing arms, and the duty or privilege of militia participation is entirely separate.
    "Mandatory training, or limitations would constitute an infringement or a limitation on the right. "

    So you believe the "well regulated militia" clause is without effect. Yes or no.
  12. 06 Apr '15 06:32
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Except for the Constitutional protection, men would not be able "to keep their toys".
    There are plenty of places without constitutions that allow people to own firearms. Most of them, actually.
  13. 06 Apr '15 07:52
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Mandatory training, or limitations would constitute an infringement or a limitation on the right.

    As to the "well regulated militia" that is enabled by an armed population, and training or regulation is often available to militiamen in various States independent of the governmen ...[text shortened]... eping and bearing arms, and the duty or privilege of militia participation is entirely separate.
    again, there is a first part to that amendment.


    even if we pass part the fact that you hold sacred an amendment more than 200 years old, you still insist to only keep the part that suits you most.
  14. 06 Apr '15 07:56
    Originally posted by JS357
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/03/kansas-to-allow-residents-to-carry-concealed-guns-without-permit/

    Without a permit, no training is required.

    This is having a well regulated militia?

    The founders, at least in Boston, required an annual muster, registration of long guns, and demonstration of proficiency.
    meanwhile, kinder surprise eggs are banned because children might choke with small parts.


    it is funny to me that a nation would view some of its children as stupid enough to swallow hole a kinder egg, but has no thought about what would happen if such a retard would get hold of a gun.
  15. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    06 Apr '15 10:05
    Originally posted by JS357
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/03/kansas-to-allow-residents-to-carry-concealed-guns-without-permit/

    Without a permit, no training is required.

    This is having a well regulated militia?

    The founders, at least in Boston, required an annual muster, registration of long guns, and demonstration of proficiency.
    The gun nuts prefer to skip over the "well regulated" part.