d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Why Americans Have The Right To Bear Arms
Prev1456
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 53,463
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 200.83
Oct 6 2017 08:12am
Quote (Leevee @ Oct 6 2017 06:10am)
can i has broken glass ceiling nao?


obama did that already
Member
Posts: 20,223
Joined: Apr 30 2008
Gold: 5,169.82
Oct 6 2017 08:13am
Quote (majorblood @ Oct 6 2017 04:12pm)
obama did that already


thanks obama
Member
Posts: 53,463
Joined: Jun 5 2006
Gold: 200.83
Oct 6 2017 08:14am
Quote (Leevee @ Oct 6 2017 06:13am)
thanks obama




relevant to obama and this thread
Member
Posts: 11,264
Joined: Sep 8 2006
Gold: 0.00
Oct 6 2017 10:29am
Quote (sir_lance_bb @ Oct 6 2017 01:33pm)
the comma between militia and the people should clarify that individuals have the right to bear arms?


Quote (Leevee @ Oct 6 2017 01:48pm)
If you want to get purely grammatical about it: the commas make it an apposition, so it definitely means that "a well regulated militia" describes "the people". In other words, people who aren't part of a well regulated militia are not part of this amendment's scope.


Quote (Landmine @ Oct 6 2017 01:59pm)
Wrong.

The whole purpose was to make sure that people had the ability to overthrow an unjust government or militia that was in power.


You're all either half-right or fully wrong.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an appositive of the noun phrase "the security of a free state."

If you consult Ghot's post, you'll notice that the U.S. had no federal army at the time. And considering the failure of the Articles of Confederacy, but the sentiment of the revolution and of the AoC, the way the second amendment is written was probably done to appease some who may have been distrustful of a Federal government ("a state" meant just that, and not the United States).

Obviously with the advent of the Federal army, the meaning as-written of the Second Amendment is basically null. It survives today on the back of jurisprudence.

Member
Posts: 33,452
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,617.52
Oct 6 2017 10:55am
Quote (Skinned @ Oct 6 2017 07:36am)
Anybody who believes in private property worships the state.



I worship only one god and he isnt of this world.

Quote (Landmine @ Oct 6 2017 08:45am)
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."



Like i said. Youre wasting your tome. Democrats never cared about truth, about the right thing. They just want the state to have more power because they worship it like a god.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Oct 6 2017 10:55am
Member
Posts: 61,373
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 10.77
Oct 6 2017 11:29am
Quote (WeAwait @ Oct 5 2017 06:48pm)
“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.”


Descriptions | Definitions

1. A militia is not a conventional army.

- A military force made up of citizens.
- The continental army was founded in 1775.


2. A militia is not only for defending against outside forces.

- Militias were used to fight troops from Great Britain during the revolutionary war. During the revolutionary war, Great Britain's government ruled the thirteen colonies.


3. Right to both keep and bear is important.

- Notice the government is not responsible for keeping arms, but it is the responsibility of the people to keep arms, so that they might maintain control of their own state.


4. What was chief threat to the "security of [the] free state" that was the young USA?

- Great Britain, its own government. Similar to how Catalonia is being oppressed today.


Conclusion

The right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting. The right to keep and bear arms is not about home defense.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is about defending a free state from its own government.


To get back to the Constitution on this issue as you've described would be impossible because Republicans hate the Constitution and would never go for it. The Constitution prohibits a standing military and enshrines people's militias as a better option.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Oct 6 2017 11:30am
Member
Posts: 20,223
Joined: Apr 30 2008
Gold: 5,169.82
Oct 6 2017 11:36am
Quote (Interesting @ Oct 6 2017 06:29pm)
You're all either half-right or fully wrong.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an appositive of the noun phrase "the security of a free state."

If you consult Ghot's post, you'll notice that the U.S. had no federal army at the time. And considering the failure of the Articles of Confederacy, but the sentiment of the revolution and of the AoC, the way the second amendment is written was probably done to appease some who may have been distrustful of a Federal government ("a state" meant just that, and not the United States).

Obviously with the advent of the Federal army, the meaning as-written of the Second Amendment is basically null. It survives today on the back of jurisprudence.


I hate to be that person, but...

Interesting.
Member
Posts: 37,137
Joined: Jun 2 2006
Gold: 1,234.56
Oct 6 2017 12:09pm
Garbage libs in this thread.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1456
Add Reply New Topic New Poll