Why the Second Amendment is superfluous

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've seen none better.
Which argument do you object to?

I haven't seen a compelling one from you yet. Maybe you can give your best one; that way, if it doesn't pass muster, we won't have to deal with the rest.

 

[Revoltingest]

I haven't seen a compelling one from you yet. Maybe you can give your best one; that way, if it doesn't pass muster, we won't have to deal with the rest.

Nothing specific, eh.
You just know that none which disagree with you are worthy?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing specific, eh.
You just know that none which disagree with you are worthy?

I've given my specific objections to them in the threads where you brought them up.

BTW: interesting approach to the Gish Gallop you have going here.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've given my specific objections to them in the threads where you brought them up.
BTW: interesting approach to the Gish Gallop you have going here.

I don't think you know what a Gish Gallop is.
If you did, you'd feel deep shame at misapplying the term.
So I forgive you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think you know what a Gish Gallop is.
If you did, you'd feel deep shame at misapplying the term.
So I forgive you.

It's when a debater throws so many claims and arguments at an opponent that he has no chance to address them adequately.

In your version, you don't even list the claims individually; you just make reference to several years' worth of debates and expect me to come up with specific objections to them.

Good job: your approach is much less effort than the standard version.

 

[Skwim]

That's a nice little speech.

Thank you.

What does it have to do with the gun situation in the USA today?

I thought this would be obvious when I said

Yet, there are a lot of people who fail to see the reasoning above, or choose to ignore it, pretending the Second Amendment says:

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

So, my advice tothe gun nuts is to stop trying to make something out of the Second Amendment that it's not, and simply admit you can't feel like a man unless possess a gun.​

The gun nuts use the Second Amendment to justify their right to own firearms. (I believe the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller is a grave misinterpretation.)


.

 

[McBell]

Thank you.

I thought this would be obvious when I said

Yet, there are a lot of people who fail to see the reasoning above, or choose to ignore it, pretending the Second Amendment says:

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

So, my advice tothe gun nuts is to stop trying to make something out of the Second Amendment that it's not, and simply admit you can't feel like a man unless possess a gun.​

The gun nuts use the Second Amendment to justify their right to own firearms. (I believe the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller is a grave misinterpretation.)


.

Let us say that the courts agree with you 100%.
So what?
How do you think it will effect the current issue with guns in the USA?

 

[Revoltingest]

It's when a debater throws so many claims and arguments at an opponent that he has no chance to address them adequately.

That's part of the definition.
But this doesn't apply, since I've not offered much in this particular thread.
Take post #2, for example.
It's a pretty simple claim that guns still play a role in warfare around the globe.
Is that so much that you have no chance to address it?
But if you have another post in mind, you're welcome to link or quote it.

In your version, you don't even list the claims individually; you just make reference to several years' worth of debates and expect me to come up with specific objections to them.

I hope you don't think that referring to having made many posts on a topic is a "Gish Gallop".

Good job: your approach is much less effort than the standard version.

I don't know what this means.

 

[Skwim]

Let us say that the courts agree with you 100%.
So what?
How do you think it will effect the current issue with guns in the USA?

As I understand it, if the courts reversed the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, or if the voting had gone the other way it would mean that the District of Columbia could ban handguns in the home, and that the right to own a gun for personal use is not inalienable as it now stands.


.

 

[Thanda]

This all came about because of a CBS Sunday Morning show today on guns, gun ownership, and gun violence.

As explained in the program:

The second Amendment was written so as to ensure the citizens of the USA had the wherewithal to thwart any attempt by Congress to take away states rights by force. In order to do so a well regulated militia was deemed necessary.
​

This reason was so crucial it was stated at the very top of the Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . ."
​

And why was establishing this reason necessary? Because it explained why the people had

" . . .the right of the people to keep and bear arms. . ."​

and what law would insure that both concepts here, the right to bear arms and the formation of a militia, would be met? It was that the right to keep and bear Arms

". . .[would] not be infringed.​

Hence, we have

"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."​

Note that the reason for all this wasn't to insure we have firearms for hunting, target practice, personal safety, or establishing one's manhood, but for "the security of a free State."

We therefore have the

WHAT: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

WHY: regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

DIRECTIVE: shall not be infringed.​

So the test question here is: why were the citizens of the country protected from anyone taking their firearms from them? So they could form a militia. And this wasn't just any kind of militia but a "well regulated" one. But why "well regulated"? Because the framers of the Second Amendment recognized this was the only form of militia that stood a reasonable chance against a nationally assembled armed force.

So, the existence of the expressed rights in the Amendment are justified by one thing, and one thing only, the simple necessity of maintaining "a well regulated Militia."

Take away this reason and the stated need to keep and bear arms no longer exists. And having no stated need to keep and bear arms there's no reason to insure it.

The question then is, is a well regulated militia necessary to protect the rights of the states? Of course it isn't, which is why there aren't any. The Second Amendment has become superfluous.

Yet, there are a lot of people who fail to see the reasoning above, or choose to ignore it, pretending the Second Amendment says:

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

How convenient, and how transparently self serving. Not that we don't see why they're doing it, but that they're so short changed upstairs that they think we don't.
So, my advice to the the gun nuts is to stop trying to make something out of the Second Amendment that it's not, and simply admit you can't feel like a man unless possess a gun. You actually N E E D to have a gun. This goes to for women as well, although I'm not quite sure of what psychological need it serves.

Any women gun nuts out there want to explain?




And Yes, I am aware of the 2008, U.S. Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v. Heller.


.

As I have explained before, the text of the Amendment is such as to indicate that the intention was not to create a new right but to protect an existing one. The amendment basically says, since it is important to have a well-regulated militia you should not take away people's right to have guns. The purpose seems to have been to prevent anyone within the country from enacting laws that would take guns away from the people.

But a more pertinent point is this - why do you think a militia is no longer necessary to protect the right of the states?

 

[jeager106]

Simple.
I have a lot of guns.
I harm no one.
No one dares harm me!
I love shooting at targets.
I keep in practice.
Gun control is being able to hit a target.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But a more pertinent point is this - why do you think a militia is no longer necessary to protect the right of the states?

It isn't that militias aren't necessary any more; it's that the modern equivalent of militias - the National Guards - don't require their members to use personally owned weapons any more. They haven't done this for quite some time.

 

[Thanda]

It isn't that militias aren't necessary any more; it's that the modern equivalent of militias - the National Guards - don't require their members to use personally owned weapons any more. They haven't done this for quite some time.

From what I understand about them their loyalties don't seem certain. That is, if the government became corrupt and started making moves against a state, the certainty that those militias would be loyal to the state rather than the national army cannot be guaranteed. IMO their independence is not sufficient.

 

[Draka]

What is a handgun going to do against a bomb, grenade, missile, tank, rocket and so on? When the government has those things at its disposal the idea that citizens with guns is going to deter them or stop them is ludicrous. So, no, having guns now is not about having a militia and no one can pretend it is. Not to mention I'd wager the majority of gun owners would not be signing up for any militia to have themselves well-regulated either. Not that it would matter as, as I mentioned...bombs and ****.

 

[Thanda]

What is a handgun going to do against a bomb, grenade, missile, tank, rocket and so on? When the government has those things at its disposal the idea that citizens with guns is going to deter them or stop them is ludicrous. So, no, having guns now is not about having a militia and no one can pretend it is. Not to mention I'd wager the majority of gun owners would not be signing up for any militia to have themselves well-regulated either. Not that it would matter as, as I mentioned...bombs and ****.

If only winning a war was as easy as dropping bombs - you wouldn't need any military experts

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From what I understand about them their loyalties don't seem certain. That is, if the government became corrupt and started making moves against a state, the certainty that those militias would be loyal to the state rather than the national army cannot be guaranteed. IMO their independence is not sufficient.

Regardless of whether the modern militia is to your liking, this doesn't change the fact that the National Guards *are* the militias.

 

[LuisDantas]

If government illegally voided the 2nd Amendment, then armed resistance might be appropriate.
So I disagree.

The 2nd Amendment will never need to be voided. There are at least two good reasons why.

One, it is carefully worded as to be capable of multiple readings, very much at odds at each other. That is what makes this very thread possible in the first place.

Two, the current understanding is nevertheless quite unjustifiable even by very generous interpretations of the Amendment.

 

[Thanda]

Regardless of whether the modern militia is to your liking, this doesn't change the fact that the National Guards *are* the militias.

I think it is relevant. If the purpose of a militia as contemplated by the FF was so that states could have a defence against the federal government, then clearly a militia that is ever more regulated by and dependent on the federal government does not fulfill such a purpose. And that is concerning.

 

[Revoltingest]

Regardless of whether the modern militia is to your liking, this doesn't change the fact that the National Guards *are* the militias.

"Well regulated" need not mean the government is controlling them.
I wouldn't count on the National Guard to defend us, especially after they murdered the Kent State students.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is relevant. If the purpose of a militia as contemplated by the FF was so that states could have a defence against the federal government, then clearly a militia that is ever more regulated by and dependent on the federal government does not fulfill such a purpose. And that is concerning.

Regardless, if the intent of "the militia" is as you suggest, i.e. an armed force under the control of the state government alone, then a self-appointed "militia" that dresses up in camo, meets in the woods, and rejects any sort of government control over their activities - federal, state or local - is even further from this goal than a state National Guard.