the second amendment doesnt protect an individual right to a gun for self defense - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

the second amendment doesnt protect an individual right to a gun for self defense
in Politics

By linatelinate 35 Pts

"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."

the main reason the second amendment doesn't protect an individual right to a gun, is because 1. bear arms historically meant use a gun in a militia 2. there is no evidence outside the text of the amendment that the founders wanted to protect the individual right to a gun for self defense. you can squint and look really hard at the founding documents but the evidence just isn't there. 3. if you read "keep and bear" together instead of as separate ideas, combined with the militia language of the amendment, you conclude even the text doesn't protect the supposed right. and, if the text is ambiguous, which it is, look at the evidence outside the text, the first two things in this paragraph, and you shouldn't conclude that the right exists. 

here is a bunch of evidence that points to the idea that the second amendment doesn't protect an individual right to a gun for self defense:

-the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/48302
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a09534fd49a0
-when the constitutional convention occurred, they didn't talk about the need for people to have guns or self defense, all the emphasis was on the need for a militia and the militia langauge in the constitution. the following links are for both this factoid and the next one too. 
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856
https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364
https://thedoctorweighsin.com/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-guns/
-when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control
-the supreme court historically didn't touch the amendment much, but when they did treated it as pertaining to militias. as recently as the reagan administration, the conservatives said the same thing. it was called a quote unquote "fraud" on the public, to say otherwise, by the conservative chief justice Burger.
-drafts of the amendment included a conscioustious objector clause, if you objected to militia duty for religious reasons you can be exempt from a militia. this reinforces that the amendment pertained to militia stuff.
-half the population from postal workers to priests were exempt from the militia. this reinforces that it wasn't generally understood that the people informally make up an informal militia. a militia is what a state defines it as.
-all the amendments have limits on them. including the first amendment. you can always read into the amendment what exactly it means to infringe on someone's rights, and find other reasonable exceptions
-the bill of rights and this amendment was originally designed as a safeguard against the federal government. that's why some hard core conservatives say states should be free to regulate as they see fit. others, say the fourteenth amendment incorporated parts of the bills of rights including the second against the states as fundamental "liberty" interests. each amendment can be incorporated on an individual basis depending on the merits of whether the amendment represents a fundamental 'liberty' interest. the issue still exists though, that how can you incorporate something as a fundamental right if it was never there to begin with?
-what does "arms" mean? if we want to be originalists and faithful to orginal intent, there is a difference between military grade weopons and the muskets they had when the amendment was passed
-you would have to use the word "keep" in the amendment to spin your way into individual rights. this ignores all the historical and amendment itself context, and ignores straighforward reading of the words taken together. 
-the following shows that courts have only since recently started applying strict principles for an individual right to a gun since the case Heller. (because that ruling deviates from prior precedent) the line between fundamental rights, non-fundamental rights, and privileges can be blurry in practice. but the rules have meaning.... there will now be a stronger expectation to let people have guns. if the legal system starts treating a gun like the right to water, a lot of bad policies and outcomes are possible even perhaps despite the fact that everyone knows these shouldn't be treated the same way. the legal system may expect things to get bad with a person before we can do anything about it, which again is a standard atypical from history or globally. "reasonable suspicion" someone is violent may not be sufficient, "probable cause" may not be. "beyond a reasonable doubt" probably would be, but it's hard to say someone is like that for their whole life. a good example is the fact that people on 'no fly' lists for airplanes can still buy a guy- there's a different legal standard even though everyone knows the person is too shady to be doing things like fly planes, and buy guns. expanded background check and treating guns like cars would simply weed out the incompetent, undisciplined, and unmotivated, violent, and mentally disturbed.... if promoting the use of guns causes more murder, do we really want these sorts of people having guns? granting fundamental rights for legal purposes instead of a practical right will cause excessive litigation to deprive people from guns on an individual basis when they shouldn't have had them to begin with. thus, because Heller got the law wrong, society is approaching a system where people can be unfit to have guns but still society still be forced or otherwise prone to allowing them to have guns anyway.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/appeals-court-gun-control-must-meet-toughest-test/
-the following is a common set of quotes from the founding fathers. if you google each of the stronger looking ones here or that you find around the internet, you will see them taken out of context or misquoted.  for example, here is the proper context of washington's first point, where he was simply addressing the need for a militia (see the second link below for even more context)- in other words, the people should be armed and disciplined for a militia if the State has a plan for a militia... so the question remains, if they are not disciplined for a militia, why should we assume they should have a right to otherwise be armed? Washington even went so far as to say it was a condition in having them be armed and disciplined for a militia, that there be some sort of formalized plan, a "requisite" condition:
""Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.""
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
https://gawker.com/the-famous-pro-gun-quotes-the-founding-fathers-never-1567962573
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/03/louie-gohmert/louie-gohmert-says-george-washington-said-free-peo/
piloteerVVSvicApplesauce



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    @linate ;

    The point made in basic principle is the United State of self-defense is not large enough to be the basic principle behind the original basic principle of common defense. Self-defense and Common defense are two independent state. In state of the union we are simply saying any amendment to the original idea of common defense set in legality should transpire around lethal force as this united state can be seen as unanimous in its creation politically.

    The Constitutional right to own gun is a Constitutional burden of lethal force which was a requirement to own property and vote for President in a new Nation. As the War of Independence was by truth conditional and subject to English Civil Law as well as the civil law of many Countries, as a statement being now held as truth legal independence from England. There is a dramatic neglect of the legal importance the Minuteman played in the America War of independence legally. These men are soldiers who cannot be charged criminally, or religiously as a murder for hire, as they do not take money for their service in any way, and as such not attached to protection by actions of a king, In knight-ship, or in military service of a crown. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1086 Pts
    You're argument fails for the same reason as the sources you cite.  You fail to mention, perhaps even comprehend, what the Founding Fathers were referring to when they talked about the militia. 

    I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.


    One of the first acts president Washington signed into law was the Militia Act of 1792.

    I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

    The only exemptions were government officials and people who's official duties required them to move around too much to be able to participate in militia duties regularly.

    That spirit lives on, with fewer exemptions, in current US law as the unorganized militia

    10 U.S. Code § 246. 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.
    (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.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246


    There can be no rational argument that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to be individual right.  The Second Amendment is a "Right Of The People".  To suggest that it does not confer an individual right would mean that the Second Amendment is the only "Right Of The People" that isn't an individual right.


    -the bill of rights and this amendment was originally designed as a safeguard against the federal government. that's why some hard core conservatives say states should be free to regulate as they see fit. others, say the fourteenth amendment incorporated parts of the bills of rights including the second against the states as fundamental "liberty" interests. each amendment can be incorporated on an individual basis depending on the merits of whether the amendment represents a fundamental 'liberty' interest. the issue still exists though, that how can you incorporate something as a fundamental right if it was never there to begin with?

    This view of the Bill of Rights is inaccurate.
    Let's begin with the simplest of observations.  Our United States Constitution serves two distinct purposes. 

    The first is to explicitly enumerate the powers and procedures of our nation's central government, which was defined as the three distinct bodies (which, by the way, two thirds of the high school students currently lecturing us about the Second Amendment cannot name) – the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, with levels of authority descending in that precise order.

    The second is to explicitly enumerate the limitations of that central government's power, which is the sole reason why our Bill of Rights exists.  The Constitution would not have been ratified in 1791 without the addition of these first ten amendments.  Therefore, our Constitution would not exist without the limitations to our central government's authority described therein.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/04/is_the_second_amendment_for_just_the_militia.html

    -what does "arms" mean? if we want to be originalists and faithful to orginal intent, there is a difference between military grade weopons and the muskets they had when the amendment was passed
    This is just stupid.  When the Bill of Rights was passed, freedom of speech meant actual speech and freedom of the press referred only to printing presses. 
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    You're argument fails for the same reason as the sources you cite.  You fail to mention, perhaps even comprehend, what the Founding Fathers were referring to when they talked about the militia. 

    The men who found the United States of America are not the same men who had control over the establishment of the United States Constitution and Amendments. They agreed on a this path for our nation best interest and to find liberty. The United state inside constitution is basic principle plus legal precedent, these as held in self-evident truths never change with time. The problem is I do not disagree with you, the debate is about detailing whole truth so a proper basic principle can be addressed by amendment aligning with legal precedent.

    The only exemptions were government officials and people who's official duties required them to move around too much to be able to participate in militia duties regularly. That spirit lives on, with fewer exemptions, in current US law as the unorganized militia.

    President Washington's assembly of a United States Armed military force with legislation does not effect the Preamble of united state made on common defense to the general welfare. We would be breaking off into several constitutional principles which are not part of the second amendment. What can be said as whole truth, like a woman is not military as this reflects a burden of constitutional representation as a united state, and there are even now unaddressed issue with a woman holding all woman as equal. It is by basic principle a woman would be either a Presadera and in enlistment of militia as a Congressional Armed service. The reality however is in basic principle a woman can own a gun and share equal fully the burdens of lethal force. This service would come outside the Armed services because guns are provided for the woman soldier by assignment form armory. Meaning the gun is still owned by taxpayer making a posture for legal argument in civil court on the idea of lethal force and its equality throughout.

    There can be no rational argument that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to be individual right.  The Second Amendment is a "Right Of The People".  To suggest that it does not confer an individual right would mean that the Second Amendment is the only "Right Of The People" that isn't an individual right. The basic principle of militia is a united state with assembly from the 1st Amendment. While an assembly is a united state with the idea of common defense. What you are saying is the 2nd Amendment abolished and did not altar constitutional basic principle. This simply is not true. The individual holder of right is given additional liberty by truth to meet outside armed service of others equally, this by sharing by choice burden of lethal force by common defense to the general welfare. This can be explained in basic principle without the detail.

    No person can expect some-one to legally kill any human on their behalf for money, soldier is paid in money, and a common defense is created on their behalf connecting them to all people. We the People of the United States. Including this one as it is held to be self-evident before legislators.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts

    What I cannot do.

    What you can do.

    What any man cannot do.

    What any woman cannot do.

    Create as creator a whole truth with others.


  • linatelinate 35 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    you didn't cite the whole quote from mr. mason. 

    "Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? 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. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes"

    notice that he says the future militia may be different than the current militia. and, another thing you left out was the exceptions to militia duty in the original laws. 

    "The militia was NEVER everybody. Who was the militia in 1790? Able-bodied, white, male, property-owners not in prison or feeble-minded, approx. 18-45. The SAME basic CLASS of persons who made up the enfranchised body politic that could vote and serve in office and in juries! So the WHOLE PEOPLE, as Adams and Madison meant it, was ONLY the enfranchised males, and THEY were the same basic class as were the militia! No blacks, no women, no children, no elderly, no cripples, no felons, no insane, no furreners, no injuns. In other words, WAY, WAY less than half the US population. And militia service was not just a right, but a DUTY, an obligation to enroll, muster, train, and register weapons each year, for a time specified, in a well regulated state militia. And the 1792 requirement to purchase and bring and register weapons and supplies was a TAX that many felt burdened them, but it was the price to pay to avoid a standing army, "the bane of liberty."

    The Militia Act of 1792 spelled out who was exempt from militia duty:

    "II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."

    And among those "exempted by the laws of the respective states," are conscientious objectors and those who could "pay an equivalent to bear arms in their stead.""
    http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm

    the bottom line though, is that the militia is what the government defines it as. i may or may not be right about who is part of an unorganized militia, but i would guess there are still lots of exceptions. are the disabled part of the militia? i'm guess there are exceptions. but even if there aren't, the bottom line is there could be  by simple act of legislature.

    you are not doing much to debunk the idea that the second amendment doesn't protect an individual right to a gun simply by making militia arguemnts the way you are.

  • linatelinate 35 Pts
    if the government can say who is or isn't in the militia, i dont see any arguments that says they can't also limit the guns the way they see fit. 
  • linatelinate 35 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    also you say the bill of rights were limitation on the central government's power. notice that's central government's power. that means states can do as they see fit. and you may just be unaware that the bill of rights goes against states only when the supreme court says they do on an individual basis through the fourteenth amendment, the 'incorporation' theory. i think the heller case was about incorporation and the second amendment. 
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    linate said:
    if the government can say who is or isn't in the militia, i dont see any arguments that says they can't also limit the guns the way they see fit. 

    In basic principle it can limit guns, it does limit guns, the cost is made directly in human life and the burden of lethal force. Who is first in the line of fire and why?

    https://www.britannica.com/event/Pearl-Harbor-attack

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

    if the government can say who is or isn't in the militia, i don’t see any arguments that says they can't also limit the guns the way they see fit. 

    This is because the government on behalf of the people, hirers a paid service by a single person. It is the number of people who perform that service which forms the assembly which is truthfully recognizing it may reserve a right to leave the state of peaceful assembly, given them in the 1st Amendment. The number of individual people who have been selected to be receive pay creates a formed assembly on filed grievance. Not a united-state as common defense to the general Welfare, this is by combination of legal precedent and basic principle a way to describe an Airtight Alibi.







  • AlofRIAlofRI 214 Pts
    The "well regulated militia" today, is called "The National Guard". It is a well regulated, trained, group of "residents" that have their families and property to protect, and they have the resources to do it. We DO NOT need an armed GANG or POSSE running around with assault weapons to "protect U.S. from the GUMMINT!" That "gummint" is also a group of "residents" with families to protect, and, though we have a bad situation now, a few "irregulars" with guns isn't going to change it. They may become "the resistance", but, by then it would be too late! We have to stop this drift toward oligarchy and authoritarianism before THAT, or MAGA will never happen. We need patriots that will protect our democracy NOW, before the guns are needed to just protect OURSELVES!

    Does ANYONE think guns can't be "taken away" by an authoritarian government after they get enough indoctrinated personnel to take over the country?? How many guns do you think there are in Russia?? If they take our democracy, the next thing will be your guns, and THEIR "well organized militia" will be taking them! TAKE AMERICA BACK AGAIN!
    CYDdharta
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1086 Pts
    edited May 12
    linate said:
    @CYDdharta

    you didn't cite the whole quote from mr. mason. 

    "Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? 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. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes"

    notice that he says the future militia may be different than the current militia. and, another thing you left out was the exceptions to militia duty in the original laws. 

    "The militia was NEVER everybody. Who was the militia in 1790? Able-bodied, white, male, property-owners not in prison or feeble-minded, approx. 18-45. The SAME basic CLASS of persons who made up the enfranchised body politic that could vote and serve in office and in juries! So the WHOLE PEOPLE, as Adams and Madison meant it, was ONLY the enfranchised males, and THEY were the same basic class as were the militia! No blacks, no women, no children, no elderly, no cripples, no felons, no insane, no furreners, no injuns. In other words, WAY, WAY less than half the US population. And militia service was not just a right, but a DUTY, an obligation to enroll, muster, train, and register weapons each year, for a time specified, in a well regulated state militia.
    No, this is incorrect.  At the time of our founding, the only people who could vote were land owners.  There has NEVER been any such requirement for entry into militia service.  And since the average life expectancy at the time was 36 years, the militia requirement was rather encompassing. 


    And the 1792 requirement to purchase and bring and register weapons and supplies was a TAX that many felt burdened them, but it was the price to pay to avoid a standing army, "the bane of liberty."
    Please provide evidence that a lot of people felt "burdened" by their militia requirements.

    The Militia Act of 1792 spelled out who was exempt from militia duty:

    "II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."


    As I've already mentioned the only exemptions were government officials and people who's official duties required them to move around too much to be able to participate in militia duties regularly.


    And among those "exempted by the laws of the respective states," are conscientious objectors and those who could "pay an equivalent to bear arms in their stead.""
    http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm


    You're misstating the reason and nature of the exemption


    Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures ith respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishement of an effective militia to the eastward. The assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making, to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia, but they were always defeated by the influence of the crown.


    the bottom line though, is that the militia is what the government defines it as. i may or may not be right about who is part of an unorganized militia, but i would guess there are still lots of exceptions. are the disabled part of the militia? i'm guess there are exceptions. but even if there aren't, the bottom line is there could be  by simple act of legislature.


    I've already posted current US law in it's entirety.   "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."


    There are few exceptions.  32 USC 313 deals only with age restriction for members of the National Guard.


    you are not doing much to debunk the idea that the second amendment doesn't protect an individual right to a gun simply by making militia arguemnts the way you are.


    You're not doing much to refute the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.  You have completely ignored the fact that if your misreading of the Second Amendment was accurate, it would be the ONLY "Right Of The People" that didn't confer an individual right.









  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1086 Pts
    linate said:
    @CYDdharta

    also you say the bill of rights were limitation on the central government's power. notice that's central government's power. that means states can do as they see fit. and you may just be unaware that the bill of rights goes against states only when the supreme court says they do on an individual basis through the fourteenth amendment, the 'incorporation' theory. i think the heller case was about incorporation and the second amendment. 

    Since D.C. is not a state, Heller didn't touch on incorporation.  The fact that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms was incorporated in McDonald v. Chicago.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts

    The truth, the whole truth is a national Guard is still just one of many Militia today.

    The truth it is easier to use the preamble in United states Constitution to establish the legal common cause for independent gun ownership. Rather then try to make an advanced principle argument with the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. Understanding is important in reconition of whole truth.

    Or, like I stated at the beginning of your debate the idea that the 2nd Amendment is in whole truth an amendment made to the 1st amendment. Saying as a Presidential state of the union. Article II, of Amendment I. As this is a clerical change and not a legislative change on a executive office level of Political business that adresses the United States Consitution directly.

    https://www.assembly.wales/en/bus-home/plenary/business-plenary-information/types-of-plenary-business/Pages/debates-and-motions-and-amendments.aspx  

  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    There are two matters of business to address here by debate. 
    1. Lethal force of gun ownership.
    2. Relationships that basic principle held and placed inside united state when written as an articles or amendment of constitution itself.

    Note:
    As I document my talks and debates a issue of constitutional description of Free has taken place in the 1st amendment. As self-evident truth there is a burden of free, this burden is that a question can be raised in matters of assigned cost, and assigned self-value. Making any freedom said to be talking place either true or false. This is only mentioned as the First Amendment may also be inline for an II Article aligning the discovery of way to which grievance is to be filed grievance. Again this is a state of the union address on basic principal, needing motion.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1086 Pts
    AlofRI said:
    The "well regulated militia" today, is called "The National Guard". It is a well regulated, trained, group of "residents" that have their families and property to protect, and they have the resources to do it.

    the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

    If a "well regulated militia" today meant "The National Guard", there would be no division between the organized militia and the UNorganized militia in US law.
    AlofRI
  • VVSvicVVSvic 23 Pts
    Even if it meant something else, you still should be able to own a firearm for self-defense, as in when someone dangerous invades your home with the intent to harm or kill. 
    "Jimmy baby" -Chief Keef




  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    VVSvic said:
    Even if it meant something else, you still should be able to own a firearm for self-defense, as in when someone dangerous invades your home with the intent to harm or kill. 

    Again, basic principle, bear arm is and expression to describe a level of force which is less then lethal. United States Constitution describes provide for the common defense which is in basic principle describing all force as a united state up to lethal force. As this is the highest force known to be inflicted on people, by other people.  

    Proposal:
    1st. Amendment, Article I, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

     1st. Amendment Article II, 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.

     

    How it is written:

    Preamble. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

     

    U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    U.S. Constitution - Amendment 2

    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.


    VVSvicGeorge_Horse
  • VVSvicVVSvic 23 Pts
    George_Horse
    "Jimmy baby" -Chief Keef




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1712 Pts
    The relevant part of the amendment is this:

    "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    You can try twisting it however you want, but it bluntly says just this: the government has no right to pass any laws limiting people's ability to keep and bear arms. You can also try twisting the term "arms" however you want, but "arms" literally means a weapon that you can keep in your arms. It may not include tanks, for example, but it does include all regular-size firearms, including automatic weapons.
    Oppolzer
  • AlofRIAlofRI 214 Pts
    The government DOES have the right to update or modify an amendment if there is enough agreement to do that. Soon, when enough people agree / demand that it must be done, it will be. 60+% of the American people think we need better gun regulation, even within the NRA. The Second WILL be changed.  The longer the killing goes on without change, I believe, the more serious the changes. When thousands die every year, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives and husbands, it HAS to happen. The sooner, the better. The sooner, the less stringent the changes will be. That's just my prediction. I would rather see them practical and realistic, than really tough. Think what you want, I do. But don't say I didn't warn you.
    CYDdharta
  • linatelinate 35 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    you're missing the point. if the second amendment protects the right to a gun for self defense, you shouldn't need the legislature to enact a law to define everyone into the militia.  you seem to be implicitly conceding that it matters that the legislature define the militia, because you are making the argument that they do. but your argument at best would be that we can't take away guns because everyone is practically in the militia. you are not covering what happens when the legislature doesn't include everyone. as i showed, the nature of the militia has always been up for change, from the beginning. 

    and why cant the government take guns away from blacks and women and certain government workers? 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1086 Pts
    AlofRI said:
    The government DOES have the right to update or modify an amendment if there is enough agreement to do that. Soon, when enough people agree / demand that it must be done, it will be. 60+% of the American people think we need better gun regulation, even within the NRA. The Second WILL be changed.  The longer the killing goes on without change, I believe, the more serious the changes. When thousands die every year, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives and husbands, it HAS to happen. The sooner, the better. The sooner, the less stringent the changes will be. That's just my prediction. I would rather see them practical and realistic, than really tough. Think what you want, I do. But don't say I didn't warn you.

    There isn't much interest in changing the Second Amendment.  There is NO such interest from the NRA or it's members.  And why would there be any interest?  The homicide rate is half what it was just 15 years ago and trending downward.  Not many people want to mess with whats working.


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1086 Pts
    linate said:
    @CYDdharta

    you're missing the point. if the second amendment protects the right to a gun for self defense, you shouldn't need the legislature to enact a law to define everyone into the militia.  you seem to be implicitly conceding that it matters that the legislature define the militia, because you are making the argument that they do. but your argument at best would be that we can't take away guns because everyone is practically in the militia. you are not covering what happens when the legislature doesn't include everyone. as i showed, the nature of the militia has always been up for change, from the beginning. 

    and why cant the government take guns away from blacks and women and certain government workers? 

    I'm not missing the point, you're missing the point.  The militia was commonly understood to be "the whole of the people".  Since the whole of the people were allowed, even required, to keep arms for defense of self and state, there was no reason to explicitly state a right to self defense in the Second Amendment.  The right to self defense is implicit in any free nation, and being able to avail oneself of the means to defend themselves is part and parcel of the Second Amendment.  As I have stated several times, the Second Amendment is a "Right Of The People".
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1712 Pts
    AlofRI said:
    The government DOES have the right to update or modify an amendment if there is enough agreement to do that. Soon, when enough people agree / demand that it must be done, it will be. 60+% of the American people think we need better gun regulation, even within the NRA. The Second WILL be changed.  The longer the killing goes on without change, I believe, the more serious the changes. When thousands die every year, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives and husbands, it HAS to happen. The sooner, the better. The sooner, the less stringent the changes will be. That's just my prediction. I would rather see them practical and realistic, than really tough. Think what you want, I do. But don't say I didn't warn you.
    In a direct democracy, things would, indeed, work this way. In a democratic republic, on the other hand, the consensus among the civilians is irrelevant as far as policy-making goes. The reasoning is that people in the government are more educated on the political matters than common folks and are better suited to develop effective policies. Unpopular policies sometimes happen to be the best policies.

    Thousands die in car crashes yearly as well. This does not mean that some sort of "car control" is needed; this simply means that there is some systematic problem within the society. And societal problems are rarely fixed by mere policy-making, and, in fact, a well-intentional policy-making can sometimes only deepen the problems the policies are supposed to address.
  • linatelinate 35 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    what law protects women, and government workers exempt from the militia, to the right to a gun?

    what if the government changed the definition of militia to cover only those who are in the national guard? would everyone still have a right to a gun, and why? 
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    VVSvic said:


    the second amendment doesnt protect an individual right to a gun for self defense.
     
    Yes it does. The way the 2nd amendment does protect individual right for gun self defense is just complex and takes a lot of effort to understand how.
    Plus! There is a greater democratic united state held in legal precedent with less complicated meaning to understand. 


    VVSvicGeorge_Horse
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts

    The 2nd Amendment is not made on United States Constitutions preamble. Preamble being the introduction of truth and fact made by the United States Constitution Articles which are written after its preamble. The articles of assembly in the United States Constitution by section is made in creation of judicial separation. Establish Justice. Justice is not a united state, it is the goal to which establishment of order is set for a united state in truth. In justice not everything need end with punishment and reprimands on liberty.

    In articles and section of Constitution after preamble people are brought together, united to form a more perfect union as a group. The purpose of this union in basic principle is to separate themselves of the individual burden of punishing the accused person alone. We all carry equally the lethal force of Capital Punishment. We all share equal by the forfeit of our own liberty the burden of lethal force in military order of martial law.

    Before or while an amendment of United states constitution is making the structure of articles and sections in constitution should be addressed. My proposal is to add article to the 1st amendment in the form of the 2nd amendment this changing the presentation of amendments as a united state in the Article of American Constitution itself. Understand? Your debate is on political alignment of states of union inside principles of Article.

    Are you saying something is missing? yes, I believe you are tell the truth. Do you want to continue to complain, or assembe basic principles to map possible conclution by legal precedent?


    George_Horse
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1086 Pts
    linate said:
    @CYDdharta

    what law protects women, and government workers exempt from the militia, to the right to a gun?

    what if the government changed the definition of militia to cover only those who are in the national guard? would everyone still have a right to a gun, and why? 

    Yes, they'd all still have a right to arms.  The militia is "the whole of the people".  The Second Amendment is a "Right Of The People".

  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    CYDdharta said:
    linate said:
    @CYDdharta

    what law protects women, and government workers exempt from the militia, to the right to a gun?

    what if the government changed the definition of militia to cover only those who are in the national guard? would everyone still have a right to a gun, and why? 

    Yes, they'd all still have a right to arms.  The militia is "the whole of the people".  The Second Amendment is a "Right Of The People".


    A right to bear arm is a lesser right then the right of common defense on behalf of the general welfare. A person of liberty would rather not claim the lesser of two rights offered by one notion of representation in legal precedent.
  • SharkySharky 60 Pts
    "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."

    Gun control advocates have for years attempted to use the "Militia" argument to maintain that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual's right to own firearms for self-defense. The clear fact that no part of the first clause negates any part of the second clause of the Amendment utterly destroys that argument. Never mind that disarming the law-abiding population will leave guns in the hands of only criminals, who, by the way, unanimously prefer their victims unarmed. 



  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    Sharky said:
    "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."

    Gun control advocates have for years attempted to use the "Militia" argument to maintain that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual's right to own firearms for self-defense. The clear fact that no part of the first clause negates any part of the second clause of the Amendment utterly destroys that argument. Never mind that disarming the law-abiding population will leave guns in the hands of only criminals, who, by the way, unanimously prefer their victims unarmed. 



    I would disagree in basic principle that the idea of clause one does negate any part of clause two. In the second amendment’s common state of public service to lethal force is shared on a military level internationally.

    1.      The self-defense in the first clause comes by way of description a "necessity to secure a free state." All free state in whole truth is something without cost or self-value placed on keeping a basic principle at liberty to be mentioned or approached.

    2.      The right of the people to keep and bear arm is pointing out that laws of genderal restriction only effect the understanding of a persons right in showing what common defense is chosen by a general welfare to be kept, in way of building or purchase.


  • SharkySharky 60 Pts
    @John_C_87

    I have to say, John, that is one tortured explanation. Fortunately, the Founders had no such problem with their use of the language. For that reason, "the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty hard to misconstrue. It says exactly what it means. This is why the courts consistently find that we, the people, do indeed have the individual right to keep and bear arms. When lower courts find otherwise, they are almost universally reversed on appeal. 
  • Sharky said:
    "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."

    Gun control advocates have for years attempted to use the "Militia" argument to maintain that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual's right to own firearms for self-defense. The clear fact that no part of the first clause negates any part of the second clause of the Amendment utterly destroys that argument. Never mind that disarming the law-abiding population will leave guns in the hands of only criminals, who, by the way, unanimously prefer their victims unarmed. 
    Well, whether or not the first part negates the second, is irrelevant...

    What is relevant is that the 2nd part is inferred from the first... Stated otherwise: From the fact that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", we infer that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"... 

    The right to keep and bear arms, is not a right that exists on its own, it is inferred from the need to have a well regulated Militia...  If the need for a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state, then the inference is gone... 
    CYDdharta
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    Sharky said:
    @John_C_87

    I have to say, John, that is one tortured explanation. Fortunately, the Founders had no such problem with their use of the language. For that reason, "the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed" is pretty hard to misconstrue. It says exactly what it means. This is why the courts consistently find that we, the people, do indeed have the individual right to keep and bear arms. When lower courts find otherwise, they are almost universally reversed on appeal. 
    I have to say, John, that is one tortured explanation.  I whole heartedly agree. However it is what is seen as whole truth, unabridged. 

    “The right in the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is a self-evident truth. It is placed in writing to be used as proof on the United State constitutional right to own specific things that may be tested by law for ownership. An extension made from the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment presented on gatherings of religion; Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.

    Here is how that whole truth is explained in basic principle. If we take away one arm, weapon another will be built to take its place. Saying otherwise is a lie. Telling people otherwise is a lie. In preserving a state of constitution, the actual united state best described for ownership of a gun is in the preamble of the constitution itself.


  • We have the right to bear arms. We should be aloud to carry them. The thing is that even if you make it illegal to carry a gun, people will do it anyways indwell kill more people. So, we should have the right to carry a concealed weapon to protect ourselves in case of an emergency.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 149 Pts
    In a true sense the Right to Bear Arm means to carry the burden of weight an Arm is measured by meaning of weapon and lethal force.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch