washington and the right to bear arms

Author: linate ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 24
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate

    did he make being armed dependent on a militia, or a militia dependent on bearing arms?

    "A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite"

    i guess he didn't say 'prerequisite', which would no doubt say people having guns is dependent on militias. 

    but what if there is no militia? couldn't we infer from him that there isn't necessarily a right to a gun? 

    here is a founding father who said the militia of the founding days can change...

    I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. "

    it seems fair to say if there is no militia there is no right to a gun
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate

    here is an overview of gun control science and policy

  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    "The people" have the right to "keep and bear" "arms", and the language suggests the right is recognized from a preexisting order, rather than simply confered by the writers of the constitution. "The right of the people" not "people shall have the right". What you are suggesting would be contingent upon the militia service being a requirement to be among the people.  If you aren't subject to a foreign power, property owner, or maybe otherwise lacking in citizenship, that is what "the people" refers to.  The intention of a well regulated militia is noted opening the 2nd amendment, but not as the sole prerequisite which is being among "the people".  

    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.


    To contend that the founding fathers of the United States intended to lay out how to disarm the people or some loophole for the government requires an unfair vantage to have a fighting chance.  The second amendment was thought to be necessary for securing independance.


  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    I should word the first sentence differently so as not to extend inappropriately for the current context. There is a right and that right is recognized in "the people"
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    the people have the right to have a gun for a militia. that looks like the best reading of the text. it's noted that if they wanted the people to have the right to a gun without regard to the militia, they would have at least made mention of this at the constitutional convention. instead, all we see there is talk about the need for a militia. it's stretching it to say they added the word 'keep' and absolute right to a gun, as an after thought. 



  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,546
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    Washington didn't make anything. The Bill of Rights were drafted by James Madison based upon input from other states and his vast knowledge of history and governments.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,546
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    To he issue at hand, the amendment is a restriction on the government. Basically, so that militia may be organized, the general right for people to bear arms may not be infringed.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    people owned guns since they were invented w/o licence, needs test or permit.  Until fairly modern time were restriction implemented.  At no time that I'm aware of, after the signing were guns rounded up from individuals, restrictions of sales and ownership.ever implemented to anything resembling to modern day.  Why is that do you suppose?  If the 2a is interpreted by anti 2a views why was there never a disarmament of non militia private citizens and or all the restrictions of ownership, manufacture and sales of?  Shouldn't have been too difficult if it was constitutional.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    Yay kill more school kids.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,927
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @disgusted
    Orange man bad.

    Guns bad.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    Many many school kids.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    Funny that many of the killers of school kids ask those kids if they are Christians, and then shoot the ones who answer affirmatively.

    Tell me, are those tattooed, goth, eyeliner wearing, trenchcoated killers of kids conservative or liberal?
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,323
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @disgusted
    too bad so many places don't take school security seriously, or mental heath, but go bury your head in the sand like all good little progressives.
  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @linate
    I'm not able to understand your last sentence

    "they added the word "keep" and absolute right to a gun,


    The right is traditionally held by Americans who believe in the ideal of righteously ordered liberty, not to be dependent upon the bill of rights for its existence.  The 2nd amendment itself pertained to the purpose of neutralizing the political matter after consolidating the confederate government in line with the aspirations people had of the necessary discipline for a free society, whilst the natural rights are expected outside of the political fray by Americans to just be taken as obvious and accounted for.  It is safe to say that the second amendment refers to the small arms of a militia and the means of organization and exercise.

  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    1
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @ethang5
    Funny that many of the killers of school kids ask those kids if they are Christians
    That happened once and the reasons were far beyond your claim...



  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @ethang5
      Should you reserve half the truth in false testimony is that not a sin?  
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    --> @Plisken

    the only way you can say the second amendment protects an individual right to a gun regardless of a militia, is to spin your way into it with the word 'keep'. the phrase 'bear arms' always meant to use a gun in a militia, so that would be stretching it to use that phrase. it would be one thing if the founding fathers talked about the need for a gun for its own sake, but all they talked about was the need for a milita. so, the only way you can say there's a right to a gun, is to assume they added that right as an afterthought while writing the amendment. the most natural reading of the text take 'keep and bear arms' together, especially given the whole context of the amendment with the preface and 'bear arms' all have to do with a militia. 
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Plisken
    What are you talking about?

  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    1
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @ethang5
    I'm sure Plisken is referring to your over-exaggerations and fabrications you so often offer.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    What are you now, troll for hire?
  • mustardness
    mustardness avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,029
    2
    1
    2
    mustardness avatar
    mustardness
    --> @linate
    Nations and their right to as many nuclear weapons they choose to have.

    Welcome to Earth!

    My nukes bigger than your nuke, my nukes bigger than yours! Sung to the tune of...

    Orange idio-ump wants to increase nukes.  He will, he will, KNOCK YOU!

    I dont see humanity on a path that leads to long term survival. Do you?

    In economics we have seen balloons inflate on false premise and then they burst.

    Is humanity growing/inflating itself  on a false premise unlimited resources with no consequences?

    Nuclear weapon = peackeeper

    357 magnum = peacekeeper

    rational humanity = peacekeeper

    caring humanity = peacekeeper

    empathetic humanity = peacekeeper

    mind first humanityh = peacekeeper


  • Plisken
    Plisken avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 709
    2
    1
    4
    Plisken avatar
    Plisken
    --> @mustardness
    The second option might be a peacemaker, but it is not a peacekeeper.  Relying on weapons for deterrence is generally stupid, morally questionable, and often illegal. The 2nd amendment has no relation to Nuclear weapons.  
  • Goldtop
    Goldtop avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,713
    2
    1
    1
    Goldtop avatar
    Goldtop
    --> @ethang5
    Funny that many of the killers of school kids ask those kids if they are Christians
    What are you now, troll for hire?
    Clearly, your posts would show you're doing it for free.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    Right. Troll for hire is like prostitution. How much did he pay you? Hope it was more than skank pay.