Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberbill718
    Enigma
    Seattle
    Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    3298
    06 Oct '15 09:151 edit
    Now this is interesting...

    The gun lobby's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the state armies - the militia- would be maintained for the defence of the state. The very language of the 2nd Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

    Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger
  2. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    06 Oct '15 09:24
    Originally posted by bill718
    Now this is interesting...

    The gun lobby's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the state armies - the militia- would be maintained for the defence ...[text shortened]... ght to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

    Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger
    and became obsolete as soon as the US finished genociding the native americans.
  3. Joined
    15 Oct '10
    Moves
    97836
    06 Oct '15 16:00
    Originally posted by bill718
    Now this is interesting...

    The gun lobby's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the state armies - the militia- would be maintained for the defence ...[text shortened]... ght to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

    Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger
    Its so interesting when someone tells you what the REAL purpose is - in this case of the 2nd amendment -
    The argument about militia's is well-worn and has enough resonance to be plausible, but here its force is overstated. The existence of the bill of rights at all is due to the resistance in some quarters to approve the constitution without specifics INDIVIDUAL rights being enumerated. The entirety of the bill of rights is directed, originally, at the individual.
    And this is to say nothing of the fact that militia's were not state institutions, but individuals that congregated voluntarily, provided their own guns and ammunition, etc.
    Do not misread me to be an absolutist on this issue at all. Common sense gun control is certainly required. I simply think that this post misunderstands the 2nd amendment.
  4. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    06 Oct '15 16:28
    Originally posted by bill718
    Now this is interesting...

    The gun lobby's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the state armies - the militia- would be maintained for the defence ...[text shortened]... ght to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

    Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger
    Labeling Burger a Conservative doesn't make him one. Nor does it make his opinions right or wrong. The problem is that the real meaning of the 2nd amendment has been so diluted over the years, that there is a ton of so called "common sense" legislation regarding owning and using guns, that the 2nd amendment is almost repealed anyway. All it would take is five SCOTUS justices to eliminate it altogether, and what other individual rights do you suppose might become extinct as well under such legislating judges?
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Oct '15 18:10
    Originally posted by bill718
    Now this is interesting...

    The gun lobby's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the state armies - the militia- would be maintained for the defence ...[text shortened]... ght to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

    Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger
    And Justice Henry Billings Brown ruled with the majority on SCOTUS that blacks are seperate but equal.

    That is the terrifying aspect of SCOTUS. It is more of a political body than a judicial one
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Oct '15 18:10
    Originally posted by stevemcc
    Its so interesting when someone tells you what the REAL purpose is - in this case of the 2nd amendment -
    The argument about militia's is well-worn and has enough resonance to be plausible, but here its force is overstated. The existence of the bill of rights at all is due to the resistance in some quarters to approve the constitution without specifics IND ...[text shortened]... n control is certainly required. I simply think that this post misunderstands the 2nd amendment.
    stevemcc: And this is to say nothing of the fact that militia's were not state institutions, but individuals that congregated voluntarily, provided their own guns and ammunition, etc.

    This is incorrect. Militias were government created organizations and participation in them was mandatory except for a few exceptions allowed by the legislature. The Militia Act of 1792 stated:

    I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, 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.

    http://www.westernjournalism.com/blogging-tools/historical-documents/antebellum-america-1789-1860/militia-act-of-1792/

    This was a federalization of already existing State practice.
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Oct '15 18:54
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    stevemcc: And this is to say nothing of the fact that militia's were not state institutions, but individuals that congregated voluntarily, provided their own guns and ammunition, etc.

    This is incorrect. Militias were government created organizations and participation in them was mandatory except for a few exceptions allowed by the legislature. The Mi ...[text shortened]... -1789-1860/militia-act-of-1792/

    This was a federalization of already existing State practice.
    If guns were only suppose to be owned by militias, why were the citizenery allowed to own guns who were not apart of militias?

    In fact, if memory serves, Alexander Hamilton died in a duel with guns. Was he part of a militia?
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    06 Oct '15 19:15
    Originally posted by bill718
    Now this is interesting...

    The gun lobby's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the state armies - the militia- would be maintained for the defence ...[text shortened]... ght to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

    Conservative Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger
    In _Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution_ John Paul Stevens
    (a retired US Supreme Court justice) writes that the Second Amendment should become:
    "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
    people to keep and bear arms *when serving in the militia* shall not be infringed."
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    06 Oct '15 19:44
    Originally posted by whodey
    If guns were only suppose to be owned by militias, why were the citizenery allowed to own guns who were not apart of militias?

    In fact, if memory serves, Alexander Hamilton died in a duel with guns. Was he part of a militia?
    I made no such claim i.e that guns were only supposed to be owned by militias, but every able-bodied male was required to be a part of the militia. So Alexander Hamilton was surely part of the militia.
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Oct '15 22:05
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I made no such claim i.e that guns were only supposed to be owned by militias, but every able-bodied male was required to be a part of the militia. So Alexander Hamilton was surely part of the militia.
    So you would say that only members of a militia today in the US should have guns?
  11. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    06 Oct '15 22:17
    I see nothing wrong with requiring men to join local militias run by the city, you know like they were in colonial times.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    07 Oct '15 02:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    So you would say that only members of a militia today in the US should have guns?
    No I wouldn't.
  13. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    07 Oct '15 16:371 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In _Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution_ John Paul Stevens
    (a retired US Supreme Court justice) writes that the Second Amendment should become:
    "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
    people to keep and bear arms *when serving in the militia* shall not be infringed."
    That rewrite would conform to Stevens' view, but not to the original writer's. Stevens, and most Justices from his time and further in the past were extremely reluctant to legislate from the bench. Altering a Constitutional amendment, via judicial fiat would not have entered his mind.
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    07 Oct '15 18:09
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In _Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution_ John Paul Stevens
    (a retired US Supreme Court justice) writes that the Second Amendment should become:
    "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
    people to keep and bear arms *when serving in the militia* shall not be infringed."
    What's interesting is that the US government DOES infringe on the right of its citizens to bear arms, yet no one seems to have brought a case to SCOTUS demanding they are allowed to own nuclear weapons.
  15. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    08 Oct '15 13:47
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What's interesting is that the US government DOES infringe on the right of its citizens to bear arms, yet no one seems to have brought a case to SCOTUS demanding they are allowed to own nuclear weapons.
    That absurdity is laughably often recited. Nuclear weapons aren't bearable infantry weapons. .......keep and bear arms. Few cases have been brought to SCOTUS on legitimate infringements by local and federal laws.
Back to Top