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

Debates Forum

  1. 06 Feb '13 13:55
    "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."

    Since Militia is an important word stated in the 2nd amendment, I think it is important to know what the founders considered a "well-regulated militia".

    Maybe it would be better to determine what a "well-regulated militia" is not. Is a "well-regulated militia" something other than a government military or not?
  2. 06 Feb '13 14:05
    The American constitution is a rather silly document. It should not have any legally binding value, really. And certainly not one that is determined by politicians. Whether a law makes sense or not does not depend on whether it corresponds to some arbitrary interpretation of a historically relevant and important but antiquated and obsolete document.
  3. 06 Feb '13 14:16
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "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."

    Since Militia is an important word stated in the 2nd amendment, I think it is important to know what the founders considered a "well-regulated militia".

    Maybe it would be better to determine what a "well ...[text shortened]... s not. Is a "well-regulated militia" something other than a government military or not?
    Haven't District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago pretty much erased the militia clause?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago [extends the above ruling to the states.]

    From the former case: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."... [However - JS] ..."Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
  4. 06 Feb '13 14:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The American constitution is a rather silly document. It should not have any legally binding value, really. And certainly not one that is determined by politicians. Whether a law makes sense or not does not depend on whether it corresponds to some arbitrary interpretation of a historically relevant and important but antiquated and obsolete document.
    Do you know what I think is silly? It think a Congressional body with only a 13% approval rating is pure idiocy in terms of democratic representation.

    I'd take the Constitution over the lot of them. In fact, I think the majority of Americans favor the Constitution over this illigitimate governing body they call Congress.

    As for the destruction of the Constitution, progressives have done a superb job in subverting it, however, now as they attempt to subvert it more, namely destroying the right to bear arms, they must change the Constitution to do so because it is so specific regarding our rights.

    Good luck progressives. Your ruin is just an Executive Order away!!
  5. 06 Feb '13 17:13
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "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."

    Since Militia is an important word stated in the 2nd amendment, I think it is important to know what the founders considered a "well-regulated militia".

    Maybe it would be better to determine what a "well ...[text shortened]... s not. Is a "well-regulated militia" something other than a government military or not?
    Well regulated at the time meant trained and competent.
  6. 06 Feb '13 17:17
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The American constitution is a rather silly document. It should not have any legally binding value, really. And certainly not one that is determined by politicians. Whether a law makes sense or not does not depend on whether it corresponds to some arbitrary interpretation of a historically relevant and important but antiquated and obsolete document.
    Easy for you to say, but despite considerable sentiment like yours among Americans in government and academia, it has stood the test of time. Those with your view always think they are smarter than everyone else, and our founders knew people like that would aim to increase and consolidate their power. The Constitution stands to resist that, perhaps inadequately in the end, but so far, so good.

    It is also probably the most copied and emulated government document in history.
  7. 06 Feb '13 17:19
    Originally posted by JS357
    Haven't District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago pretty much erased the militia clause?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago [extends the above ruling to the states.]

    From the former case: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnec ...[text shortened]... in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
    Those cases put the militia clause in context, not erasing it but recognizing it as a single justification, not modifying the articulated right of the people.
  8. 06 Feb '13 17:25
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "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."

    Since Militia is an important word stated in the 2nd amendment, I think it is important to know what the founders considered a "well-regulated militia".

    Maybe it would be better to determine what a "well ...[text shortened]... s not. Is a "well-regulated militia" something other than a government military or not?
    a well regulated militia in the 21st century has the same usefulness as the nipples on George Clooney's Batman
  9. 06 Feb '13 17:41
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "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."

    Since Militia is an important word stated in the 2nd amendment, I think it is important to know what the founders considered a "well-regulated militia".

    Maybe it would be better to determine what a "well ...[text shortened]... s not. Is a "well-regulated militia" something other than a government military or not?
    It is an organization of armed citizens. Organization is key for being well-regulated. The way the FBI has interfered with this by infiltration and trying to get the militias to break the law is a violation of the constitution. Well regulated does not mean controlled by the government.
  10. 06 Feb '13 17:44
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    a well regulated militia in the 21st century has the same usefulness as the nipples on George Clooney's Batman
    I would say more important now then ever in the past. Last ditch effort to uphold the constitution is by ousting a government that does not uphold its obligations, and or is oppressive. The government controls military and national guard so obviously those groups are not what was intended as being the well regulated militia.
  11. 06 Feb '13 17:52
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The American constitution is a rather silly document. It should not have any legally binding value, really. And certainly not one that is determined by politicians. Whether a law makes sense or not does not depend on whether it corresponds to some arbitrary interpretation of a historically relevant and important but antiquated and obsolete document.
    You know nothing of democratic republics then.
  12. 06 Feb '13 17:57
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    I would say more important now then ever in the past. Last ditch effort to uphold the constitution is by ousting a government that does not uphold its obligations, and or is oppressive. The government controls military and national guard so obviously those groups are not what was intended as being the well regulated militia.
    if the government controls the military, the billions of dollars worthy military, how well regulated does you militia have to be to stand a chance? i would say you would need at least 2-3 clark kents, a wonderwoman and her invisible jet, about 10 invisible men, bruce wayne and about 100 of his bat caves to give you gadgets and all your militia men, who are basically civilians, to be trained to marine level martial artists and weapon specialists.
  13. 06 Feb '13 18:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    You know nothing of democratic republics then.
    what a rather silly thing to say. the constitution is a couple of guidelines. the laws are meant to enforce them and explain them.


    "all humans are born free. all have the right too be free. "
    that is nice, but we have cases where they don't have the right to be free. that is where laws come in. laws that change as society changes. in a constitution there should be things that are always to be upheld. as such it is rather silly to still put in a constitution the right to bear arms, in an age of nuclear weapons and aircraft carriers and smart bombs.
  14. 06 Feb '13 18:01
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    if the government controls the military, the billions of dollars worthy military, how well regulated does you militia have to be to stand a chance? i would say you would need at least 2-3 clark kents, a wonderwoman and her invisible jet, about 10 invisible men, bruce wayne and about 100 of his bat caves to give you gadgets and all your militia men, who are basically civilians, to be trained to marine level martial artists and weapon specialists.
    That is assuming the military will go along with the government. There are some wildcards out there.
  15. 06 Feb '13 18:07
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Those cases put the militia clause in context, not erasing it but recognizing it as a single justification, not modifying the articulated right of the people.
    I believe it means the court decision is that the right to possess a firearm does not need justification on the basis of service in a militia.