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
     Second Amendment

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

    
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What did the Founding Fathers intend with the Second Amendment? 

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/SECONDAMENDMENT.HTM

(Edited by admin 10/8/2002 at 6:51 PM).
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 10:12 AM on May 1, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They intended that the military or mini militias in states should be able to own guns ONLY.  That is why it says  'right of MILITIA to bear arms.'  There are no one man militia's, or at least politically correct ones.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 3:32 PM on September 25, 2002 | IP
tsmith2771

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually the reason it was put in there was because of the fear of the british returning to kick the hell out of us.  And really anyone can be a militia.


-------
"I have no interest in making blacks equal to whites, they are of a lesser quality and this I am sure of." -Abraham Lincoln
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by making the other person die for theirs." -General George Patton
 


Posts: 372 | Posted: 6:42 PM on September 25, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but there are no one man militias...  Only multi man.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 09:10 AM on September 26, 2002 | IP
therut

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where do you get "the right of the militia" ? The 2nd 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.  It was written for three reasons.  To fight aganist tyrannical government,  to repel invasions and for self-defense.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:16 PM on September 28, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It means what it says: "The right of the people shall not be infringed."
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 07:52 AM on October 13, 2002 | IP
badler007

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

therut definitly had the right idea.  a defense against a tyrannical government, and self defense too.  You have to remember that the native americans were a vicious threat during that time period.  So carrying a gun was a necessary safety, if u were on the frontier especially.


-------
Willie didn't know!
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 4:03 PM on October 30, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From day one there has been debates on exactly what the founding fathers meant in the greatest document ever written. On the subject of the 2nd amendment I believe that what ever guns existed when the constitution was written then that is the type of guns that should be allowed for citizens to own.
Does anyone really need an Uzi or a Bushmaster? I think not. Let's level the playing field and make all gun owners equal.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:34 PM on November 11, 2002 | IP
madbilly

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

look at it this way, be thankful the sniper was not using a weapon from that time period. The .223 bushmaster isnt even half the size of the .50 muskets used during that time. The lead ball of the musket would shatter every bone in the vicinty of the wound and would cause far more serious damage than the .223. Also the 2nd amendment was implaced so that the citizens could rebel against the government if it becomes tyrranical....read some of Thomas Jeffersons letters and the such and you will find this to be true. If we where relegated to having only the weapons of that time period , or no weapons at all we would have no chance to stop tyrrany. If you want to look at it objectivly we should be allowed to posses what  every the Government owns, bc the people of that time period possesed the same as the government (partly bc they where the government), but lets be realistic not everyone needs to have a machine gun, so we have to get a class 3 license, which i think is fair enough so i wont complain.


-------
my name is madbilly....what did you expect me to be happy when my name says Mad in it...
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:20 AM on November 12, 2002 | IP
Szczepankiewicz

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the Second Amendment should be viewed in context of the Constitution and all the other amendments.

The primary purpose of the Constitution is to outline the role of the Federal Government of the United States of America.  To define in detail what the Fed can and cannot do, NOT what the CITIZENS can and cannot do.

---

Amendments.
Article I: 'the right of the people'
Article II: 'the right of the people'
Article III: 'without the consent of the Owner'
Article IV: 'The right of the people'
Article V: 'No person'
Article VI: 'the accused shall enjoy'

I could go on, but I think my point is clearly illustrated when I say that the Bill of Rights pertains to  the rights of individual persons (whether they are part of or separate from a group).  

These amendments do not state what the people can do, but what the government is prevented from doing towards the people.

SZ
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 6:27 PM on November 13, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Look, I think the founding fathers ment to say that if those Lobster Backs, or any peoples fighting against them came into their house,, the colonists could protect themselves.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:51 PM on November 21, 2002 | IP
StormCrow

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree that the premise of the second ammendment is that of self defense. It is defense from threats both foreign (I know this isn't a big problem now) and domestic (this includes threat from a tyrannical government, criminal activity, domestic terrorism, etc). If the people were deprived of this right we would be at the mercy of our government, who although not tyrannical, could easily become so. Consider this quote:

    "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
                                     -Adolf Hitler, 1935

Ultimately, the beauty of the consitution is that it is left open ended, and quite intentionally. Our founding fathers know that times change, and circumstances change. They knew that the government they created wasn't inteded to be tyrannical. Neither do I think the germans thought 6 million jews would die because of the man who promised them their return to greatness. On the issue of the second ammendment, the truth is simply this: Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If it wasn't a gun, it would be a baseball bat, or a ball pein hammer, or whatever. If guns were outlawed, only the honest people would give up their guns, do you think people who break the law would give up their guns? That's rediculous.

                               Storm Crow


-------
"The Way of the Warrior is the two-fold path of pen and sword. Even if a man possess no natural inclination he may be a warrior by sticking assidously to both divisions of the Way."

-Shinmen Musashi
 


Posts: 112 | Posted: 12:52 PM on April 23, 2003 | IP
MBeke48

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I do not understand why you Americans attach so much value to things that were written hundreds of years ago and were only applicable to that time, when America still was a Wild West. Nowadays the USA is still a Wildwest because of these amendment.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 11:44 AM on January 24, 2005 | 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.