PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     The right of the people to kee

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As we all know, the second amendment says

“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.”

But who is the militia?  According to federal law Title 10 U.S.C. 311. Militia: composition and classes:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
As I am male and between 17 and 45 years of age, I am “militia”.


The militia is not simply the national guard! If you read the second half of § 311. Militia: composition and classes:

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

The National Guard is the Organized militia, I am the unorganized militia.  But I am militia all the same, and NOT BY MY CHOICE BUT BY FEDERAL LAW!

Second, the second amendment does not limit arms to me, it merely states the overall rational behind the right.  It says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”

What it does not say:
“the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms”
“the right of the government to keep and bear Arms”

If the intent of this right was not for ‘the people’ the framers had an entire dictionary of other words to choose, but they said ‘the people’.  Please find me one other usage of the phrase ‘the people’ in the constitution/bill of rights that does not actually apply to the people.

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 11:16 PM on April 24, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, just out of curiosity, do you hold to the "all or nothing" view of the 2nd amendment (i.e. those who focus on the "shall not be infringed" part of the sentence) which allows all citizens (although, by the original founding father's views this wouldn't include women or non-white's, hence the need for additional amendments regarding the right to vote) to possess arms without regulation?  Or do you hold to the "read the whole amendment" camp which says that the ability to regulate who should have and what type of arms they can have (i.e. your next door neighbor really has no need to house a thermonuclear weapon in his backyard and the ex-convict with the rape rap down the street doesn't need access to an AK-47 either) should be a right of the government?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:54 AM on April 25, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the founding fathers would have had a middle ground, and I think that is why the phrase “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” was included.  

I believe the militia is “necessary to the security of a free State” not just because they might be called up to fight a foreign power, but to address crime, for the people to be secure in their homes, ect.

What kind of weapons would a militia member be expected to posses?  Clearly a battle rifle, hand gun and even a shot gun would be militia weapons.  But heavier weapons would not be militia weapons; they would be government produced/controlled/owned.  Right?  What militia member would be expected to keep and deploy a cannon?  

So no, bombs, tanks, nuclear weapons, clearly they are not in the realm of ‘militia’ weapons.  Rifles, hand guns, shotguns, these are militia weapons.  If the founding fathers wanted citizens to be able to have any and all weapons, they could have simply said so.  

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 9:39 PM on April 25, 2007 | IP
WBPV253

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wish the forefarthers here in Australia had the commonsense as those in America.  At least you get to choose whether your 2nd ammendment is changed or not, unlike here were our politicians decide what is best for you.  Our gunlaws were tightened at a huge cost to the taxpayer and almost 10 years later the murder and suicide rates haven't changed but at least they didn't use a gun to do it.  Just like the speed cameras they use here which we were told they would reduce the road fatility figures and years later the road fatility figures haven't been improved at all but more cameras turn up all the time.  Its called a scapegoat, firstly they introduce licencing of firearms, background checks, compulsory safes, magazine restriction and so on.  As time goes by they then say well we now need to ban some types of firearms and it continues like that for years and years until no more guns are available to the public.  In the meantime lazy politicians enrich themselves and manage to avoid addressing the real issues that are hurting society, they don't care because  by the time the "GUN LAW" excuse wears out they will have moved on and it will be somebody elses problem.  In the meantime more people die a horrible death every day than all the mass shootings put together but no media outlet makes any noise whatsoever about it and we accept that as normal.
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 03:49 AM on April 26, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

It is interesting that some people are fixated on the 32 dead. I am reminded of Stalin's quote "A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic." How many people have die each year of completely preventable causes.  As examples, drunk driving, as a result of Bush's lies, young children in swimming pools, how many lives are saved 1-2 at a time because of guns, ect.

I have found that the vast majority of gun control advocates are just find with death as long as people die 1-2 at a time in a way that just blurs into a “statistic”.  I think you have to have a small mind indeed to completely focus on the 32 death tragedy and then completely ignore the huge "statistic" of life and death that surrounds us every day.

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 11:26 AM on April 26, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the ex-convict with the rape rap down the street doesn't need access to an AK-47 either) should be a right of the government?

I just realized I did not address this bit.  Many of the constitutional protections/rights don’t apply to felons.  For example they don’t have the legal right to vote, although some states may give them the privilege to vote, and may also lose protections against unreasonable search or seizure.  The second amendment should not apply to them either.

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 7:13 PM on April 26, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not if you remove the regulation part of the amendment.  Felons or not they are still citizens of the United States.  You either allow for exceptions or you don't.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:06 PM on April 26, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Felons don't have 4th or 15th  amendment protection so you are already wrong.
 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 12:19 PM on April 27, 2007 | IP
homerb89

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why should the government have access to more powerful weapons than the people. This makes the government stronger than the people. It would  be hard for the weaker party(the people) to hold the stronger party(the government) in STRICT SUBORDINATION, as the constitution also calls for. The purpose of the second amendment was to  ensure that the people would always be more powerful than and completely capable of overthrowing a government that became tyrannical. The Government was intended to be weaker than the governed, and your theory that they have the right to control what arms the people can have, while having unlimited access to arms of their own, is completely contradictory to the vision the founding fathers had for this country.
 


Posts: 11 | Posted: 9:09 PM on May 6, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In other words, we should all have the right to keep thermonuclear warheads in our back yard....

kindrox, exactly, we've already shown that there are exceptions to the amendments to the constitution.  If you allow for exceptions to be made, then the government certainly has a right to impose them.  If you argue that exceptions shouldn't be made, then the "regulation" part still stands.  Either way, you can't use it as an excuse to fight things like gun registration.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:57 PM on May 6, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Homer, there really is a reason why the preamble of the second amendment says “militia”.  Our national guard does not have nuclear weapons and the militia would not either.  Weapons of mass destruction are not militia weapons and never have been.  The people don’t need them to be stronger than the government as Iraq has proven once again.

The felon exception is because a person chose to commit a serious crime and thus lost his rights.  Your argument would be if you can take the rights from a felon, why even need to convict a citizen before taking his rights, at which point you don’t have a right at all.

Gun registration per se is not a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, so I agree that this is not unconstitutional.  I am against it because a) my second amendment right is not currently *recognized* by many politicians/judges, and those same people would like to take my right away completely.  Registration has always been a precursor to grabbing.

Second, I think it is a waste of money.  I really cannot think of how registration will solve/stop a single crime and it is expensive.

However, if my second amendment right was enshrined with the first, I would laugh and say bring on your registration.  Then when some fool cop confiscates my gun, I don’t have to go find the receipt to get it back as happened in NOLA

Further, if we do registration I want registration similer to current NFA items.  Some dumb local cops freak out when they see (legal) short barrel rifles, machine guns and suppressors, grab them and sometimes take the legal owner to jail.  At this point the dumb cop just committed a federal felony (possessing an unregistered NFA firearm) and is open to a civil suit which people like me LOVE.  The BATFE gets really unhappy about it.

This would keep cops on a much shorter leash than they have now with ordinary firearms.

We will save “regulated” for another thread, but I do not believe it means “restricted”.


(Edited by kindrox 5/7/2007 at 12:49 AM).
 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 12:46 AM on May 7, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, but the 2nd A is about the right to keep and bear ARMS. Not GUNS, ARMS.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:11 PM on May 21, 2007 | IP
kindrox

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes so any and all Americans need nuclear weapons to defend the homeland.

Or should we just limit "arms" to rockets with cluster bombs?

I am sure the real army will appreciate the "help" you are sending them in the form of friendly fire.

Where do idiots like you come from?  If dealing with foreign powers I don’t think the Army needs you launching nuclear weapons around as you see fit, and if dealing with domestic tyrants I don’t think the population will appreciate it either.

As Iraq has more than adequately demonstrated, the traditional militia arms are just fine in defending against superior forces.

 


Posts: 54 | Posted: 12:39 AM on May 22, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.