2A - Are there any liberals left?

Author: Conway ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 20
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 132
    0
    2
    4
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    There's plenty of people like Senator Klobuchar who recognize the right to sit in a deer stand.  This thread is for finding out about proponents of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  For these purposes, we'll assume the people who deliberated on the matter did not intend to codify some sort of loophole that could render the right to bear arms obsolete.  Lets see who has respect for the Constitution.  

    Handgun access is implicitly shielded from states according to Heller vs DC 2A, 9A,14A --- Access to "weapons of war" with utility in civilian life is shielded explicitly from Congress

    International Suggestions:  Self defense is a valid reason to keep small arms - - - Police are armed as common members of the civilian populace



  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 887
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    the phrase "bear arms" during the founding  days, meant to have a gun in a militia. the beginning of the second amendment uses the phrase "a well regulated militia" 

    the last part of the amendment is ambiguous. so what is a court to do? look at the evidence from the founding days. when we do that, there is absolutely no evidence that the founders wanted to protect anything other than militia rights. look at the constitutional convention. you can squint and look really hard, but there is no evidence of things like 'self defense' or hunting. 
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 132
    0
    2
    4
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @n8nrgmi
    The good guys wanted to make sure the federal government could form a select body of members comprising the most powerful military force, and then reduce access to fighting implements for most of the civilian populous, except police and some employees of the state.  This one is for the bad guys.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,081
    3
    4
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @n8nrgmi
    the phrase "bear arms" during the founding  days, meant to have a gun in a militia. the beginning of the second amendment uses the phrase "a well regulated militia" 
    A militia...with guns. Banning guns inherently prevents that.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,747
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ILikePie5
    Back then you could mount a cannon to protect your boat.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,081
    3
    4
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Greyparrot
    Back then you could mount a cannon to protect your boat.
    Would’ve been so fun!
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,266
    3
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    Typically, we do a poor job of understanding
    1. Definition
    2. Syntax
    3. That language is driven by culture, not the other way around. Meaning that interpretation, for the Constitution and at least the Bill of Rights [1 - 10A], must be read and interpreted from an 18th century syntax, not a 21st, but concluding that the same purposes of the 18th century might just still be shared in the 21st.

    "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."

    What is regulated, militia, necessity, security, and free state? What is a right, the people, keep, bear, arms, and infringed? Look these up in a dictionary that will give you 18th century meaning. The OED, unabridged, for example. Merriam-Webster won't cut it. Few dictionaries today will give you the complete etymology of every word in the lexicon. The OED does. That's why it occupies fully 20 volumes of definition, etc.

    The pre-emptive phrase is conditional, but is not the only purpose of the concluding phrase, but was, at the time [1780s] critical to the populace. Do think, for example, that a "well-regulated militia" needed to have members with their own weapons [is an "arm" to be understood to be only a gun? - look it up - for the period - 1780s], and should those weapons be, themselves, "well-regulated," as in good working order such that they can be utilized at a moment's notice for whatever purpose?  For example  [from my OED]: 1766   J. Trusler Difference between Words I. 25   By arms, we understand those instruments of offence, generally, made use of in war; such as fire-arms, swords, &c.

    If their arms are in good working order, can they be used for other pursuits, remembering that Safeway was a couple of centuries away? Or did the concept of "infringed" imply only that arms could be used only for purposes of a militia? It says, "not infringed," doesn't it?
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 887
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @ILikePie5
    people who are in a militia can keep and bear arms. if you aren't in a milita, you dont have a second amendment right to a gun. (though i could see a ninth amendment right to a gun)
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,081
    3
    4
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @n8nrgmi
    people who are in a militia can keep and bear arms. if you aren't in a milita, you dont have a second amendment right to a gun. (though i could see a ninth amendment right to a gun)
    I’m in a militia with other gun owners. I challenge you to prove that I’m not. If you just want every single gun owner to join a militia just for name, just say so lol
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 132
    0
    2
    4
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @ILikePie5
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,081
    3
    4
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Conway
    Even better, thank you
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 887
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @ILikePie5
    if states all brought back most people being in the milita, i wouldn't be opposed to protecting most people's right to a gun via the second amendment. as it sits now, though, states do not include most people in the milita. 
  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 887
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @ILikePie5
    states have always defined who is in the miltia. you are not defined as in the milita. why do you think there were and are laws that described who was and wasn't in the milita? 
  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 919
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    The 2nd Amendments primary purpose is to ensure that Americans have the right to defend themselves. During the Revolutionary War it was mainly militias that brought the most amount of fight to the British, not the army authorized and funded by Congress. Since the government created under the Articles of Confederation was also incredibly weak, the Founding Fathers at the time they were writing the Constitution were left with the HEAVY impression that Americans cannot rely on their government to keep them safe from foreign threats, since twice already it really dropped the ball and citizens had to take care of things with their own hands...... The evidence of this is indicated by how the 2nd amendment explicitly talks at the start about 'well regulated militias' rather than defense against tyranny or any mention of the words 'self defense' 

    For that reason, the right to bear arms was written in a context more towards the idea of 'dont depend on the government to protect you', rather than answering the question we have been dealing with for a lot longer 'how much do citizens have the right to arm themselves?'. That question has been punted to states, while firearms themselves have evolved considerably over time as well, leading to the current fuckfest we have to deal with now  
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,081
    3
    4
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @n8nrgmi
    if states all brought back most people being in the milita, i wouldn't be opposed to protecting most people's right to a gun via the second amendment. as it sits now, though, states do not include most people in the milita. 
    They don’t have to. A militia doesn’t have to be formally recognized by the  govt. That’s the entire point lol.

    states have always defined who is in the miltia. you are not defined as in the milita. why do you think there were and are laws that described who was and wasn't in the milita?
    Huh? The Supreme Court has already ruled that Americans must have access to guns because they have the right to join a militia. You can’t say ban guns while also saying keep the 2nd Amendment. The two are intertwined lol. Plus I am a part of the militia per US Code so 🤷‍♂️.
  • Conway
    Conway avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 132
    0
    2
    4
    Conway avatar
    Conway
    --> @ILikePie5
    Back then you could mount a cannon to protect your boat.
    Would’ve been so fun!
    There is no "would have" about your property.  State and local laws may still apply.



    Handgun access is implicitly shielded from states according to Heller vs DC
    Some people might notice that Washington DC is in federal jurisdiction. I rolled with it to convey a basic statement nicely on one line.

  • n8nrgmi
    n8nrgmi avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 887
    2
    2
    3
    n8nrgmi avatar
    n8nrgmi
    --> @ILikePie5
    i'm a conservative when it comes to the supreme court. what the founders originally meant is what should apply. in the original days, states or the government defined a militia.... there were no informal militias. you are proposing to find a right that isn't in the text of the amendment itself, and isn't how things were done originally. u r bein a whacky liberal. 
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,081
    3
    4
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @n8nrgmi
    i'm a conservative when it comes to the supreme court. what the founders originally meant is what should apply. in the original days, states or the government defined a militia.... there were no informal militias. you are proposing to find a right that isn't in the text of the amendment itself, and isn't how things were done originally. u r bein a whacky liberal
    It really doesn’t matter how you define a militia. Having guns and being in a militia are intertwined in the 2nd Amendment. If you ban guns, you’re inherently preventing someone from joining a militia because of the way it’s phrased.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,081
    3
    4
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @Conway
    Some people might notice that Washington DC is in federal jurisdiction. I rolled with it to convey a basic statement nicely on one line.
    Chicago v McDonald incorporated DC v Heller to the states
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,767
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    I think that some of you guys have lost sight of what "A Militia" actually is.

    A militia isn't a private army that is separate to the State.