Would you vote to ratify the 2nd Amendment?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:33:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Would you vote to ratify the 2nd Amendment?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: Would you vote to ratify the 2nd Amendment?
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
No (D)
 
#3
Yes (R)
 
#4
No (R)
 
#5
Yes (I/O)
 
#6
No (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 57

Author Topic: Would you vote to ratify the 2nd Amendment?  (Read 6893 times)
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2006, 08:30:04 AM »

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  Where does this imply that there is a restriction on what arms people can keep and bear?
The preamble of the amendment is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The amendment can be interpreted so that only those arms "necessary to the security of a free State" are protected.

Also, note the First Amendment says that Congress may make no law abrdidging the freedom of speech. This does not imply that one can say whatever one pleases. One cannot commit perjury, publish libels, or threaten to kill someone. The First Amendment cannot be interpreted in an absolutist fashion; the same applies to the Second Amendment.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2006, 09:42:37 AM »

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  Where does this imply that there is a restriction on what arms people can keep and bear?
The preamble of the amendment is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The amendment can be interpreted so that only those arms "necessary to the security of a free State" are protected.

If other enemy states acquired nuclear weapons, a militia in the USA would need these weapons as well.  Also, "arms" = "A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms." from the dictionary.  An example they even give of an 'arm' is a 'nuclear arm'.

If a nuclear weapon could be carried and operated by hand, it would be an arm.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,550
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2006, 11:44:08 AM »

I thought the left says the the right hates freedom but they want to restrict our right. Shame on you Tweed. Tongue
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2006, 12:04:25 PM »

I thought the left says the the right hates freedom but they want to restrict our right. Shame on you Tweed. Tongue

I'm just trying to save you from being vaporized in a mushroom cloud.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2006, 12:07:52 PM »

Why don't you apply the same literalist interpretation to other parts of the Bill of Rights? I could argue, for example, that threatening to kill someone is protected under the free speech clause. Does it follow that you would have voted against ratifying the First Amendment?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2006, 12:11:04 PM »

Why don't you apply the same literalist interpretation to other parts of the Bill of Rights? I could argue, for example, that threatening to kill someone is protected under the free speech clause. Does it follow that you would have voted against ratifying the First Amendment?

Assault/murder isn't protected under speech and assembly.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2006, 12:16:48 PM »

Assault/murder isn't protected under speech and assembly.
Threatening to kill someone is clearly speech.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2006, 03:46:04 PM »

"Arms" is clearly too vague.

Clearly in the 1780s, a "well regulated militia" in the form of a large number of armed colonials bearing rifles was able to pose a significant threat to any government. The same does not hold true today. The Branch Dividians certainly could not call upon their small arms to save them. There would be nothing to stop it today if the Armed Forces decided to suspend the constitution and grant themselves police power. What we need today to protect ourselves from our won government, including the governments of other countries, clearly includes nuclear weapons.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,972
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2006, 05:24:47 PM »

Not as written.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2006, 07:36:04 PM »
« Edited: February 26, 2006, 08:42:31 PM by Senator Gabu »

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  Where does this imply that there is a restriction on what arms people can keep and bear?
The preamble of the amendment is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." The amendment can be interpreted so that only those arms "necessary to the security of a free State" are protected.

Also, note the First Amendment says that Congress may make no law abrdidging the freedom of speech. This does not imply that one can say whatever one pleases. One cannot commit perjury, publish libels, or threaten to kill someone. The First Amendment cannot be interpreted in an absolutist fashion; the same applies to the Second Amendment.

I still feel that it could be much better worded.  It says that "a well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State", but then it goes on to simply say, in unqualified terms, that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  Given that, supposedly, this militia is supposed to be a check on government tyranny, and given that the government has nuclear weapons, would it not follow that the militia should be able to possess nuclear weapons as well?

It seems to me that, if it's so clear-cut, there would likely not be as many people as there are who advocate making available in the free market nuclear weapons, battleships, bombers, etc.
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2006, 07:51:24 PM »

I voted No, but I'm really not sure.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,977
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2006, 11:23:00 PM »

No, and nothing similar either. No one has the right to own guns.
Logged
nini2287
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,616


Political Matrix
E: 2.77, S: -3.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2006, 01:13:52 AM »

Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 27, 2006, 03:02:50 AM »

I'm pro-gun rights because it's in the Constitution.  I've never really considered it if it wasn't.

I'm not sure.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 27, 2006, 04:20:44 AM »

No, of course not. It's horribly written. This has nothing whatsoever to do with its content.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2006, 09:15:02 AM »

No, of course not. It's horribly written. This has nothing whatsoever to do with its content.

^^^^^^^^^^^
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2006, 09:21:50 AM »

Yes.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2006, 09:48:15 AM »

Thinking back, in its current incarnation - no.  It's terribly unclear.

I was answering that question in the spirit of what it was intended to stand for, not what it actually says.
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2006, 12:39:21 PM »

Yes, though some clarification and strenghtening couldn't hurt.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 27, 2006, 12:41:07 PM »

"Arms" is clearly too vague.

Clearly in the 1780s, a "well regulated militia" in the form of a large number of armed colonials bearing rifles was able to pose a significant threat to any government. The same does not hold true today. The Branch Dividians certainly could not call upon their small arms to save them. There would be nothing to stop it today if the Armed Forces decided to suspend the constitution and grant themselves police power. What we need today to protect ourselves from our won government, including the governments of other countries, clearly includes nuclear weapons.

What are those people in Iraq doing?
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 27, 2006, 11:49:35 PM »

Certainly not...
Logged
TX_1824
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 542
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.06, S: 2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2006, 11:26:09 AM »

Yes (FF)
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2006, 11:36:51 AM »
« Edited: February 28, 2006, 11:39:19 AM by thefactor »

"Arms" is clearly too vague.

Clearly in the 1780s, a "well regulated militia" in the form of a large number of armed colonials bearing rifles was able to pose a significant threat to any government. The same does not hold true today. The Branch Dividians certainly could not call upon their small arms to save them. There would be nothing to stop it today if the Armed Forces decided to suspend the constitution and grant themselves police power. What we need today to protect ourselves from our won government, including the governments of other countries, clearly includes nuclear weapons.

What are those people in Iraq doing?

Precisely the point! In order to stand up to even Iraq's dilapidated, demoralized little army required a vast system of command, control, communications centers, aircraft carrier battlegroups, laser-guided missiles, intelligence operations, and loads of tank battalions and mechanized infantry heavily trained, utilizing essentially blitzkreig tactics.

"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."

It is significant that the founders inserted their reasoning explicitly into the text of the amendment. They did not have to do that.

To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2006, 01:36:15 PM »
« Edited: February 28, 2006, 01:41:25 PM by Frodo »

To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.

Um, no.  What Bono was demonstrating (I think) was that even a people with inferior weaponry to our own could stand up to the world's only superpower, and eventually force them to withdraw, as they had in Vietnam, and what they threaten to make us do in Iraq.  And as far as I know, they have no nuclear weapons.

Therefore, it follows that nuclear weapons are not required to stand up to our own government -though they can help in such an extreme circumstance.

Precisely the point! In order to stand up to even Iraq's dilapidated, demoralized little army required a vast system of command, control, communications centers, aircraft carrier battlegroups, laser-guided missiles, intelligence operations, and loads of tank battalions and mechanized infantry heavily trained, utilizing essentially blitzkreig tactics.

WTF?  You have a bizarre way of making points.  Tongue
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2006, 01:40:49 PM »

To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.

Um, no.  What Bono was demonstrating (I think) was that even a people with inferior weaponry to our own could stand up to the world's only superpower, and eventually force them to withdraw, as they had in Vietnam, and what they threaten to make us do in Iraq.  And as far as I know, they have no nuclear weapons.

Therefore, it follows that nuclear weapons are not required to stand up to our own government -though they can help in such an extreme circumstance. 

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for saving me the trouble to explain. Smiley
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 14 queries.