Jump to content
TedderVision
Shiggy

I Am Pro Gun Change My Mind

Recommended Posts

1) you said that there MUST be a limit on guns and that it is not absolute with no boundaries.

2) I used the example of there NOT being limits on freedom of speech itself, but rather a limit on the USE of free speech. (IE the action shouting the word "fire" in a crowded theater is what is prohibited......but the word "fire" itself is not banned from all uses.)

3) This shows my point that just like the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms is also absolute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shiggy said:

1) you said that there MUST be a limit on guns and that it is not absolute with no boundaries.

2) I used the example of there NOT being limits on freedom of speech itself, but rather a limit on the USE of free speech. (IE the action shouting the word "fire" in a crowded theater is what is prohibited......but the word "fire" itself is not banned from all uses.)

3) This shows my point that just like the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms is also absolute.

Thank you, I get your point now. I'd disagree but now I see where you're coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bruce said:

Thank you, I get your point now. I'd disagree but now I see where you're coming from.

 

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's grey area in every part of society and our lives. I don't agree the Bill of Rights is the sole exception on the planet. However, I also recognize that this is the oldest debate in our country. Should the Constitution be seen as a living document or should it be followed as strictly as possible? We've gone back and forth on it for almost 250 years at this point, I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bruce said:

There's grey area in every part of society and our lives. I don't agree the Bill of Rights is the sole exception on the planet. However, I also recognize that this is the oldest debate in our country. Should the Constitution be seen as a living document or should it be followed as strictly as possible? We've gone back and forth on it for almost 250 years at this point, I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

Can you give any historical evidence to point to the founding fathers not seeing the 2nd amendment as absolute?

I pointed to historical evidence that they did........case in point, the fact that Madison (who was the author of the 2nd amendment) did not tell the merchant ship that canons were not included in the 2nd amendment despite them being artillery pieces and not guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shiggy said:

 

Can you give any historical evidence to point to the founding fathers not seeing the 2nd amendment as absolute?

I pointed to historical evidence that they did........case in point, the fact that Madison (who was the author of the 2nd amendment) did not tell the merchant ship that canons were not included in the 2nd amendment despite them being artillery pieces and not guns. 

Well, as I said on the last page I'm not sure your Madison letter really proves what you think it does.

However, if someone else wants to take over here please do, I can't spend all day on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bruce said:

 

However, if someone else wants to take over here please do, I can't spend all day on this.

 

Fair enough.........needless to say you did not change my mind, but I appreciate the talk. :):):):)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @Aaron @AdamG92 @Adc33 @ADG @Aiser13 @Akwildcat19 @Alex Smith @Alexander @Amelia Lockhart @AmirHossein @Batman @BBDGDVCDJshdh @Ben Gilbert @BigMacMan @Bluto @Bobby @Bobseymour88 @Bolster @Bren @Brown @Cal Palmer @Callos @Calum D Wilson @Calvin Marshall @Calvin Marshall @Cameron @Cardinalfan9 @Chris @CJL @Clauson @CMDRThorn @Daggdag @darkseid15 @David M. Zumwalt @Devon Hamilton @DMH @Dodge @Dogslife @Doomhammer @Drew MaBoundaries @Edward Mitchell @Elosoblanco90 @emoney @Enzo @Evan @Fairbanks @Falnor @Flamingdem @Francis J. Underwood @Francisco Cojuanco @Garrit Blizzard @GatlinTech @GojiraGamer @gordonfire155 @Gukkor @Hachen @Harrmonster @Heather @History Boss @Hood @HuAt98 @itz___aidan @JacobDMartinez @Jake Thompson @Jamesthemad @Jellybeans @Jerry Ward @Jewell @Jim jordan @Jim Koch @John Cline @John Dunn @Keynes @Kidkrausz4 @Lachie910 @Ledward Skynardhands @Liberty97 @LM32 @Macmillan @Magenta @Maia @mallowclayton @MarcusW @Marquez Martin @Marvib @Max @Maxi @mcfarlane @Naram-Sin @Niels Graf @Nigeljohnson242 @Ollie @Osiris Storm @Parker G. Ward @Pfrales @Pizzuto @Portela @Proctor @Prussian1871 @ramrodk17 @Rangerboy @Recks @rnw3590 @Robert @Ron @Running Deer @Russ @Ryan @Samuel Knight @Scheer @Sean Manning @Sheridan @Sinan @Sizey @Solaire of Astora @Sonofsaxon @Sovereign @tanua @Templeton @Terrus @Testerson @TexAgRepublican @TheBen @theoriginaltrotka @Tjvig94 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2018 at 3:32 PM, Shiggy said:

I believe literally that the 2nd amendment guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms and that right should not be infringed upon by the government with full or partial bans of weapons.

 

Change my mind. 

When we have debates about the meaning of the Second Amendment, we tend to only take into account the phrase that says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". However, the Second Amendment says that "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 phrase "well regulated militia" is arguably a provision that prevents the federal government from interfering with the defense of a state. However adding the word regulated, implies that the Framers did not intend for this right to not have exceptions. In response to a question asked earlier in this discussion, there are checks to the First Amendment. There are time and place restrictions that prevent people from shouting fire in a crowded building or restrictions that prevent people from randomly protesting on highways to stop traffic. There are certainly exceptions to every right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presentism.

"Well regulated militia" doesn't mean "militia subject to government edict." Regulated should be understood in the 18th Century context; when a watchmaker regulates a watch, he's not setting the criteria (or design if you will) of the watch. He's adjusting the mechanism so it functions properly. The "well-regulated militia" is not one that is restricted by bureaucrats; instead, it's one that meets regularly and is well-practiced in the use of arms suited to militia use. Historically, this was through regular "militia meetings" usually held near a county courthouse which were the distant ancestors of the modern-day National Guard and Reserve drill weekends.

 

It must also be understood that the Framers categorically rejected a large standing Army, instead relying on local militias called to service on demand. For a well-regulated militia to be in fact well regulated, it must possess arms suited to militia use. The "sporting purpose" clause in Federal law is arrogantly unconstitutional as it restricts the arms most closely protected by the Second Amendment: military arms.

 

To address an objection before it's made, the US "Army" in the Revolution was primarily militia, as were Old Hickory's troops before New Orleans who curbstomped the finest Army on earth at the time. The greatest light infantry in recorded history, Stonewall Jackson's Army of the Valley, were primarily militia as well. More recently, Tennessee's own Alvin York (who captured 134 Germans and probably killed over 25 more) was a member of the National Army which was as close to a militia as the US had in the Great War. The unconstitutional Dick Act of 1903 had transformed the militia into a second-echelon reserve component of the Army. And in much more recent history, the Afghan mujahedeen (sp?) humiliated the Soviet Union. The bottom line is this: Armed, determined men will always prevail in a fight.

 

The Second Amendment restated what was obvious to many of the Framers: The right to keep and bear arms, not being a Delegated Power to the new General Government, was a Reserved Power to the States and therefore completely immune to Federal infringement through the force of law. Therefore 100% of Federal firearms legislation has been enacted under usurped power and is plausibly illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nigeljohnson242 said:

When we have debates about the meaning of the Second Amendment, we tend to only take into account the phrase that says "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". However, the Second Amendment says that "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 phrase "well regulated militia" is arguably a provision that prevents the federal government from interfering with the defense of a state. However adding the word regulated, implies that the Framers did not intend for this right to not have exceptions. 

 

1) Let me guess...........you listen to The Young Turks?
 

 

2) a couple of things about your militia argument.........

 

a) The founding fathers debated every piece of punctuation in every clause of the 2nd amendment and very purposefully put punctuation to separate ideas. As such, the comma between mentioning a well regulated militia and the final part contradicts your fairly sloppy grammatical argument and based on 0% of historical fact of the founding fathers and their intention. 

b) If that were true, then why did George Washington not confiscate guns in order to stop the Whiskey Rebellion and others?  The answer is.........for the same reason that the founding fathers were able to rebel against the British......AND the fact that EVEN MILITIAS were made up of  PRIVATE GUN OWNERS WHO VOLUNTEERED TO SERVE IN MILLITIAS..........aka.........."the right of the people to own and bear arms"

 

 

Also........Stephen Crowder also debunked argument by Cenk HERE, HERE and HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nigeljohnson242 said:

In response to a question asked earlier in this discussion, there are checks to the First Amendment. There are time and place restrictions that prevent people from shouting fire in a crowded building or restrictions that prevent people from randomly protesting on highways to stop traffic. There are certainly exceptions to every right.

 

And as I already pointed out......that argument is pretty weak. 

1) There is NOT any limit on freedom of speech because the founding fathers did not PLACE any limit on freedom of speech. If they had wanted to, they would have expressly written it into the first amendment.

2) As for your comment about yelling fire in a crowded theater...........There is a HUGE difference between saying that there is a limit on freedom of speech itself (for example a list of banned/prohibited words or phrases) and saying that certain use of speech as a call to action (IE inciting violence) is prohibited. I can still say the word "FIRE" without being thrown in prison. It is using the word intentionally to call others to acts of violence that makes it illegal....not the speech itself. Limits on speech would be saying that there was a list of banned words or phrases that are illegal to say.

That's the kind of lazy argument you'd skim past in a  high school debate club so you could get to the arguments that were more compelling 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nigeljohnson242 also this.....

 

Quote

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

 

 

So let me ask you this...........Can you give any historical evidence to point to the founding fathers not seeing the 2nd amendment for citizens as opposed to just militia?

I pointed to historical evidence that they did see the the end amendment as being for all zitizens........case in point, the above quote as well as the fact that Madison (who was the author of the 2nd amendment) did not tell the merchant ship that canons were not included in the 2nd amendment despite them being artillery pieces and not guns. 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinions of guns is, simple, the 2nd amendment applies to everyone, however, not everyone is mentally able to own a gun. Most mass shootings are committed by the clinically insane, which is why my solution/belief is if you keep the clinically insane from getting firearms you reduce the amount of shootings by 80-90%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Batman said:

My opinions of guns is, simple, the 2nd amendment applies to everyone, however, not everyone is mentally able to own a gun. Most mass shootings are committed by the clinically insane, which is why my solution/belief is if you keep the clinically insane from getting firearms you reduce the amount of shootings by 80-90%

 

I would agree as long as your process for determining who is "insane" does not deny any person due process before such a fundamental constitutional right is taken away. 

How exactly would that be determined?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Shiggy said:

 

I would agree as long as your process for determining who is "insane" does not deny any person due process before such a fundamental constitutional right is taken away. 

How exactly would that be determined?

Yeah that's my problem. I've worked in the mental health field for 11 years and I can tell you that I'd probably trust 20%of the clinicians I've met to be able to honestly/accurately assess something this specific with this large of a ramification. Not because anyone is overly stupid, but simply because of the nature of what is being ask. The human mind is very complicated. Additionally, in many states a huge population of people get their mental health from either government agencies, or private entities who contract with government agencies. In a world where most government agencies are run by progressives, I absolutely fear that agenda driven clinicians would make terrible assessments to further their political agenda.

Additionally, I'm not even sure we could keep guns out of their hands even if we WANTED to. So my solution is a heavily armed population that can defend themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The “fire in a crowded theater” argument is pretty sound, in my opinion.  The right to free speech in the 1st amendment is pretty unequivocal, but there are exceptions that have been created in the law for perfectly valid reasons (slander is another example), and these do not negatively impact free speech in any significant way.  Clearly the right to free speech doesn’t just involve saying whatever words you like, but the specific context and meaning; nevertheless, these restrictions stand, for good reasons.

I fully agree with the right of citizens to bear arms, and as the amendment provides, if a state maintains a militia or decides to in the future, they can call up citizens with proper firearm training/experience to join.  (A couple of asides: first, a militia in this context is decidedly not a bunch of survivalist idiots shooting tin cans on the weekend and plotting the overthrow of the “fedrul guvmint”.  In fact, even when organized by the states, Art 1 Sec 8 gives the federal government the right to suppress rebellions (See: U.S. Civil War).  Second, most of the Supreme Court cases dealing with the 2nd amendment actually ruled against conscientious objectors who refused state militia service.  If state militia service were to make a comeback, I would definitely want to see conscientious objectors get more respect.)

The Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. U.S. that the federal government could restrict certain arms (in this case, sawed-off shotguns) that were deemed not suitable for militia service.  It’s arguable that AR-15s would be suitable (bump stocks less so), but I think it’s fairly clear that there are arms that do not belong in private hands.  Would strong 2nd amendment advocates be ok with nuclear weapons in private hands?  Or is it ok only if it looks like a gun?  Because clearly the technology of guns has changed.  The Las Vegas shooter was able to create such carnage in such a short amount of time that would have been unimaginable with the firearms available in the 1790s.  I don’t believe the 2nd amendment disallows certain arms being restricted (fully automatic rifles are already banned, of course.  Again, is that a violation of the 2nd amendment?), and certainly wouldn’t disallow universal background checks or other regulations that would be consistent with organizing a state militia.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Cal Palmer said:

The “fire in a crowded theater” argument is pretty sound, in my opinion.  The right to free speech in the 1st amendment is pretty unequivocal, but there are exceptions that have been created in the law for perfectly valid reasons (slander is another example), and these do not negatively impact free speech in any significant way.  Clearly the right to free speech doesn’t just involve saying whatever words you like, but the specific context and meaning; nevertheless, these restrictions stand, for good reasons.

 

Except I already showed how that argument is based on a false conclusion that speech is limited. I already pointed out that it is not the speech itself that is limited (in which case there would be a list of banned words) but rather it is the action that is what is illegal. 

So in the case of shouting fire in a crowded theater, it is the action of causing panic intentionally that is the problem not uttering the word "fire"...........otherwise it would be illegal for me to say fire all the time not just in the crowded theater. The same is true for libel. It is not the words itself that make it illegal but rather the intent to spread objectively false information about someone in order to hurt their good name. 

The entire argument is shallow and not very convincing at all. It is such a lazy and stupid argument that I would not even give it points in a high school debate club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×