Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Second Amendment

brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 5:00:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Forgive me, I'm not an American and I don't fully understand how legislation in the US functions, but it seems to me that much of the Constitution is now irrelevant - particularly the Second Amendment.

As I understand it, the 'right to bear arms' was introduced when the US was a very different place from what it is now, at a time when there was cross-party opposition to standing armed forces.

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

"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...[and] 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."

Is this really relevant to the 21st Century? Today, the US has the most powerful military forces in the world. Does it really need to rely on its citizens to repel an invasion or to suppress a civil uprising?

Isn't it now time that the Second Amendment was repealed?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 5:13:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Forgive me, I'm not an American and I don't fully understand how legislation in the US functions, but it seems to me that much of the Constitution is now irrelevant - particularly the Second Amendment.

As I understand it, the ‘right to bear arms' was introduced when the US was a very different place from what it is now - at a time when there was cross-party oppostion to a standing army.

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

"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...[and] 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."

Is this really relevant to the 21st Century?

Today, the US has the most powerful military forces in the world. Does it really need to rely on its citizens to arm themselves with muskets and flintlocks to repel an invasion or to suppress a civil uprising?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 5:24:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 5:00:17 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Forgive me, I'm not an American and I don't fully understand how legislation in the US functions, but it seems to me that much of the Constitution is now irrelevant - particularly the Second Amendment.

the constitution is Literally the basis of ALL other Federal law in the US.

Every bit of it comes before any other Federal law... as other law's ONLY claim to legitimacy is through it.

Isn't it now time that the Second Amendment was repealed?

nope :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 6:02:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is this really relevant to the 21st Century? Today, the US has the most powerful military forces in the world. Does it really need to rely on its citizens to repel an invasion or to suppress a civil uprising?

Isn't it now time that the Second Amendment was repealed?:

You are right to note that the circumstances surrounding the creation of the 2nd Amendment we're different than they are in today's time, but the necessity still exists. Just because the government grants certain freedoms now does not mean that you will always have those rights.

Sure, we have police to protect you from bad guys. But who's going to protect you from the police?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 6:23:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 6:02:20 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Is this really relevant to the 21st Century? Today, the US has the most powerful military forces in the world. Does it really need to rely on its citizens to repel an invasion or to suppress a civil uprising?

Isn't it now time that the Second Amendment was repealed?:

You are right to note that the circumstances surrounding the creation of the 2nd Amendment we're different than they are in today's time, but the necessity still exists. Just because the government grants certain freedoms now does not mean that you will always have those rights.

Sure, we have police to protect you from bad guys. But who's going to protect you from the police?



Because, as we all know, people shooting at police are likely to have honourable intentions.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 7:11:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 5:00:17 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Forgive me, I'm not an American and I don't fully understand how legislation in the US functions, but it seems to me that much of the Constitution is now irrelevant - particularly the Second Amendment.

As I understand it, the 'right to bear arms' was introduced when the US was a very different place from what it is now, at a time when there was cross-party opposition to standing armed forces.

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

"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...[and] 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."

Is this really relevant to the 21st Century? Today, the US has the most powerful military forces in the world. Does it really need to rely on its citizens to repel an invasion or to suppress a civil uprising?

Isn't it now time that the Second Amendment was repealed?

Well, maybe if you people didn't march into my home town of Lexington shoot up the place then march on to our neighbors in Concord and try and steal their stash of guns and powder we wouldn't have such an amendment. Really Brian you only have yourselves to blame here. ;-)

Also, this is not just part of the constitution but part of the Bill of Rights, that's like our Magna Carta, it will be there forever. As stated above, it's not just about owning guns, but a general understanding of the relationship between the people and it's government.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 7:52:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 7:32:03 AM, Sieben wrote:
If we repeal the second amendment it has to apply to everyone. Including the government. That I would support.

ummm... the second amendment doesn't Allow you to be armed... and doesn't Allow the Government to be armed.

it prevents the Government from passing a law saying that you Can't be armed... (and implies that you do indeed have that right)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 8:06:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sorry, I meant that if they would ever pass a law against bearing arms, it should apply universally.

You're right about me being wrong about the second amendment. But hey, when in rome!
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 8:13:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 7:52:35 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 9/6/2010 7:32:03 AM, Sieben wrote:
If we repeal the second amendment it has to apply to everyone. Including the government. That I would support.

ummm... the second amendment doesn't Allow you to be armed... and doesn't Allow the Government to be armed.

it prevents the Government from passing a law saying that you Can't be armed... (and implies that you do indeed have that right)

The reason it simply prevents the govt... instead of straightforwardly asserting individual's rights is b/c that's how the constitution was written.

The Fed. government has NO POWER to assert control over individuals IN ANY WAY unless that power is derived from the powers Explicitly given to the Govt. in the constitution.

any other assertion over individuals is explicitly outlawed in amendments 9 and (especially) 10

9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 9:22:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 7:32:03 AM, Sieben wrote:
If we repeal the second amendment it has to apply to everyone. Including the government. That I would support.

Yeah, good idea. Then we can wait while a country not stupid enough to disarm wipes us out.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 9:42:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 6:23:46 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Because, as we all know, people shooting at police are likely to have honourable intentions.

It happens more often than most people realize. The more corrupt and oppressive a government becomes, the more likely those circumstances arise
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 9:51:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, gun control is pointless. Firearms are so easy to manufacture that any demand for criminal grade weapons could easily be met by someone with even a rudimentary knowledge of metalworking. Even if you managed to completely eliminate the supply of illegal firearm imports and confiscated all weapons, you couldn't stop the firearm market.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 10:08:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Because, as we all know, people shooting at police are likely to have honourable intentions.:

Ah, right, because if you're a police officer you must automatically be a great guy!

Let's see: Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind, not to mention the myriad of police brutality cases around the world.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 10:19:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
No one explained to Brian in a straight forward and easy to understand way why we have, need, and many of us cherish the second amendment. So I will:

Brian is correct that one purpose of the amendment was to provide for the mutual defense of the nation through militia. But another, equally important purpose of this amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The people may arm themselves to defend against tyranny.

It is due to this principle that many conservatives believe the government has no right to limit what types of guns or weaponry that individuals may own. They feel that for this purpose to be able to be fulfilled, the people must have guns that will actually be effective against modern police and military forces.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 4:02:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Does it really need to rely on its citizens to repel an invasion or to suppress a civil uprising?
It needs to rely on its citizens to MAKE civil uprisings when the time is right.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 4:14:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 10:19:58 AM, JBlake wrote:
No one explained to Brian in a straight forward and easy to understand way why we have, need, and many of us cherish the second amendment. So I will:

Brian is correct that one purpose of the amendment was to provide for the mutual defense of the nation through militia. But another, equally important purpose of this amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The people may arm themselves to defend against tyranny.

It is due to this principle that many conservatives believe the government has no right to limit what types of guns or weaponry that individuals may own. They feel that for this purpose to be able to be fulfilled, the people must have guns that will actually be effective against modern police and military forces.

That's a really good insight into the American mentality - totally alien to me, of course, but no less valid for that.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 4:24:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 10:19:58 AM, JBlake wrote:
No one explained to Brian in a straight forward and easy to understand way why we have, need, and many of us cherish the second amendment. So I will:

Brian is correct that one purpose of the amendment was to provide for the mutual defense of the nation through militia. But another, equally important purpose of this amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The people may arm themselves to defend against tyranny.

It is due to this principle that many conservatives believe the government has no right to limit what types of guns or weaponry that individuals may own. They feel that for this purpose to be able to be fulfilled, the people must have guns that will actually be effective against modern police and military forces.:

There's also the inherent right to protect oneself, one's family, and one's property.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 8:12:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 4:14:45 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 9/6/2010 10:19:58 AM, JBlake wrote:
No one explained to Brian in a straight forward and easy to understand way why we have, need, and many of us cherish the second amendment. So I will:

Brian is correct that one purpose of the amendment was to provide for the mutual defense of the nation through militia. But another, equally important purpose of this amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The people may arm themselves to defend against tyranny.

It is due to this principle that many conservatives believe the government has no right to limit what types of guns or weaponry that individuals may own. They feel that for this purpose to be able to be fulfilled, the people must have guns that will actually be effective against modern police and military forces.

That's a really good insight into the American mentality - totally alien to me, of course, but no less valid for that.

lol... of course.

It took the Brits centuries for the "Nobles" to even build up the cajones to make the king sign a contract limiting his control over them...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 8:36:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Not totally related, but I think the Second Amendment, in its usual interpretation (you cannae take our gunzzz!) is a fairly important one, even though I have major doubts that it was designed for that purpose.

Citizens should have the right to bear arms, though any sane government must have restrictions on what guns are exactly carried. Recreational hunting, sport, and home defense? OK - the are guns specifically designed to do that stuff. But what the f*ck does Joe Schmoe need a fully automatic M249 with a 200-round magazine for, except to kill fellow citizens?

Guns designed to kill other people with ease and comfort shouldn't be covered as a right under any amendment. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. There's an element of risk there that the government in its capacity has to act on.
Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 8:42:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 6:23:46 AM, Kinesis wrote:
Because, as we all know, people shooting at police are likely to have honourable intentions.

Hey, Black Panther Party.
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 9:09:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 8:36:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
Guns designed to kill other people with ease and comfort shouldn't be covered as a right under any amendment. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. There's an element of risk there that the government in its capacity has to act on.

The false premise here is that fully automatic weapons are somehow inherently more deadly than semi automatic or bolt action weapons. Or the proper mixture of fertilizer. Please explain in detail how a person equipped with a massive support weapon would manage to make their way to a through a crowded area without raising suspicion.

But what the f*ck does Joe Schmoe need a fully automatic M249 with a 200-round magazine for, except to kill fellow citizens?

For fun. For a hobby collection. For sporting purposes. Because he thinks it's cool. I personally know someone who was involved in converting a legal semiautomatic weapon into a highly illegal fully automatic select fire weapon. Why? For shits and giggles. The gun probably doesn't even see the light of day. If there was any demand for fully automatic weapons, the black market would provide it. The truth is, fully automatic weapons like the M249 are not the OMGZOR KILLING MACHINEZ that you are making them out to be. Sustained fire is inaccurate, wastes ammo, and is generally unreliable. They're good for providing a large area of suppression, and have some close quarters applications, and that's about it. There are much more efficient ways to kill as many unarmed people as possible, and few of them involve firearms.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 9:36:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 8:36:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
Citizens should have the right to bear arms, though any sane government must have restrictions on what guns are exactly carried. Recreational hunting, sport, and home defense? OK - the are guns specifically designed to do that stuff. But what the f*ck does Joe Schmoe need a fully automatic M249 with a 200-round magazine for, except to kill fellow citizens?

Guns designed to kill other people with ease and comfort shouldn't be covered as a right under any amendment. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. There's an element of risk there that the government in its capacity has to act on.

The major reason is as I mentioned a couple posts above. If the people are to be able to protect themselves from tyranny, they must have weapons that would actually be effective against modern military and police forces.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 9:37:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 8:36:05 PM, Volkov wrote:

But what the f*ck does Joe Schmoe need a fully automatic M249 with a 200-round magazine for, except to kill fellow citizens?

Zombie invasion, obviously. I have a plan, Volkov, do you?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 9:39:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 9:37:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/6/2010 8:36:05 PM, Volkov wrote:

But what the f*ck does Joe Schmoe need a fully automatic M249 with a 200-round magazine for, except to kill fellow citizens?

Zombie invasion, obviously. I have a plan, Volkov, do you?

Come to think of it, that sounds like an awesome egglestonian debate topic. "The right of citizens to defend themselves in the event of a zombie outbreak." I would be PRO, obviously. Would you be interested, Brian?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 9:40:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 9:37:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/6/2010 8:36:05 PM, Volkov wrote:

But what the f*ck does Joe Schmoe need a fully automatic M249 with a 200-round magazine for, except to kill fellow citizens?

Zombie invasion, obviously. I have a plan, Volkov, do you?

Everybody knows AK-47's are the best gun to use against zombies. Just ask anybody who plays CoD. ^_^
Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 9:42:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 9:40:13 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/6/2010 9:37:52 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/6/2010 8:36:05 PM, Volkov wrote:

But what the f*ck does Joe Schmoe need a fully automatic M249 with a 200-round magazine for, except to kill fellow citizens?

Zombie invasion, obviously. I have a plan, Volkov, do you?

Everybody knows AK-47's are the best gun to use against zombies. Just ask anybody who plays CoD. ^_^

Nah, ray guns are the best!
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2010 9:46:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/6/2010 9:42:41 PM, Anarcho wrote:

Nah, ray guns are the best!

Come on! Be realistic here! Not everybody has easy access to ray guns!