- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jones “The Second Amendment is not an absolute right, not a God-given right"
Posted on 11/20/17 at 11:12 am to Antonio Moss
Posted on 11/20/17 at 11:12 am to Antonio Moss
Dupes
This post was edited on 11/20/17 at 11:13 am
0
Posted on 11/20/17 at 11:14 am to TigersFan64
quote:
The Greek city states had armed militias which were under the control of the various governments, so your assertion that the concept of state-controlled militias wasn't around in 1787 is just flat-out false.
Please quote where I made that assertion.
quote:
There were also militarized militias fighting on both sides during the American Revolution.
Irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
quote:
The point you are totally missing is the intent that the state militias be well-regulated. The drafters certainly didn't intend on them to be an uncontrolled, loose collection of people like you seem to be asserting.
It's like you've never heard of the Minutemen.
quote:
Otherwise, they wouldn't have included the important clause "A well-regulated militia."
What the Framers were envisioning was a militia formed from the armed populace. Membership was not -nor ever has been- a determining factor for whether one could own/bear firearms in the eyes of the 2nd Amendment.
This post was edited on 11/20/17 at 11:17 am
Posted on 11/20/17 at 11:16 am to Bard
quote:
What the Framers were envisioning was a militia formed from the armed populace. Membership was not -nor ever has been- a determining factor for whether one could own/bear firearms in the eyes of the 2nd Amendment.
Obviously this is true. To say that participation in a sanctioned militia is a requirement is to infringe on the right to bear arms for anyone not in a sanctioned militia.
This isn't hard.
Posted on 11/20/17 at 11:22 am to MrCarton
quote:
To say that participation in a sanctioned militia is a requirement is to infringe on the right to bear arms for anyone not in a sanctioned militia.
And the way he's putting it would give the State the power to dictate who could be armed and who could not simply by regulating militia membership. This would fly completely in the face of the reason for even having a 2nd Amendment in the first place.
Posted on 11/20/17 at 11:30 am to Bard
So if we look at the various state ratifying conventions that suggested amendments to the constitution we can get a much clearer picture of what the second amendment should mean:
New Hampshire
Virginia
New York
It was clearly focused on people. Anyone claiming otherwise is either historically ignorant, or disingenuous.
New Hampshire
quote:
Twelfth, Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.?
Virginia
quote:
Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
New York
quote:
That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State;
It was clearly focused on people. Anyone claiming otherwise is either historically ignorant, or disingenuous.
Posted on 11/20/17 at 11:54 am to Bard
quote:
And the way he's putting it would give the State the power to dictate who could be armed and who could not simply by regulating militia membership. This would fly completely in the face of the reason for even having a 2nd Amendment in the first place.
Yep. That's literally no different than the state claiming full power to determine who may keep and bear arms arbitrarily. Completely contradicting the context statement of the amendment.
Posted on 11/20/17 at 11:58 am to MrCarton
What are the odds that TigerFan64 returns? He did this last week.
Posted on 11/20/17 at 12:41 pm to MrCarton
quote:
Of course they have argued that the wording of the 2A is absolute. It's retarded to argue that it's anything else.
I need to see this. Where has any prominent politician ever argued that the Second prevents any kind of regulation whatsoever.
Posted on 11/20/17 at 2:35 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
No one has ever claimed that it was absolute. This is a complete strawman.
quote:
Where has any prominent politician ever argued that the Second prevents any kind of regulation whatsoever.
Let's figure out which statement we are addressing first. If your premise is that the most logical interpretation of the 2A is not a popular political sentiment, then of course you are absolutely right. If you think that "nobody" does or has argued that it was intended to prevent fed regulation or infringement on arms ownership, then you are absolutely wrong.
Posted on 11/20/17 at 2:45 pm to MrCarton
quote:
If you think that "nobody" does or has argued that it was intended to prevent fed regulation or infringement on arms ownership, then you are absolutely wrong.
In absolute terms? I'm sure some incredibly uneducated bloggers have, but I'm referring to people of consequence.
Page 5 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News