Common Ground
-
I think it was @Renauda who said that maybe gun laws, if based on the Constitution, mean that the only legal weapons a citizen could carry would be a "musket". LOL
-
@Jolly @Mik I have to respectfully disagree.
It is impossible to say that if the writers of the Constitution could have looked into the future and saw the future weapons we have now, they would have written it the same way.
If a person is more in favor of guns, they will feel that the writers would imagine the improvement in weapons and would be okay with it, understanding that the other would improve also.
If a person is less in favor of guns, their view will be the opposite or they feel that there were limits intended to be placed on weapons - like the comment that it was written to cover weapons in place at the time of writing.
-
The writers could have said no cannons or private warships. But they didn't. They said, quite clearly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That technology has progressed, as they knew it would, has no bearing on the intent.
If you want to change the Constitution, there is a process for that. Have at it. But the opposition is lazy and wants to just ignore it.
-
I know this is a discussion that we cannot solve here and I also know that this is a item where peoples minds will probably not be changed, but I do not think it is such a "black and white" issue.
The 2 Amendment 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."
Why then are their restrictions on any types of weapons? Nuclear? Gun that shoots chemicals? Biological weapons?
-
I know this is a discussion that we cannot solve here and I also know that this is a item where peoples minds will probably not be changed, but I do not think it is such a "black and white" issue.
The 2 Amendment 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."
Why then are their restrictions on any types of weapons? Nuclear? Gun that shoots chemicals? Biological weapons?
@taiwan_girl said in Common Ground:
I know this is a discussion that we cannot solve here and I also know that this is a item where peoples minds will probably not be changed, but I do not think it is such a "black and white" issue.
The 2 Amendment 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."
Why then are their restrictions on any types of weapons? Nuclear? Gun that shoots chemicals? Biological weapons?
First, determine who the militia were, when the Constitution was written.
That's your first clue.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Common Ground:
I know this is a discussion that we cannot solve here and I also know that this is a item where peoples minds will probably not be changed, but I do not think it is such a "black and white" issue.
The 2 Amendment 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."
Why then are their restrictions on any types of weapons? Nuclear? Gun that shoots chemicals? Biological weapons?
First, determine who the militia were, when the Constitution was written.
That's your first clue.
@Jolly said in Common Ground:
@taiwan_girl said in Common Ground:
I know this is a discussion that we cannot solve here and I also know that this is a item where peoples minds will probably not be changed, but I do not think it is such a "black and white" issue.
The 2 Amendment 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."
Why then are their restrictions on any types of weapons? Nuclear? Gun that shoots chemicals? Biological weapons?
First, determine who the militia were, when the Constitution was written.
That's your first clue.
I don't think I know that.
-
@Jolly said in Common Ground:
@taiwan_girl said in Common Ground:
I know this is a discussion that we cannot solve here and I also know that this is a item where peoples minds will probably not be changed, but I do not think it is such a "black and white" issue.
The 2 Amendment 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."
Why then are their restrictions on any types of weapons? Nuclear? Gun that shoots chemicals? Biological weapons?
First, determine who the militia were, when the Constitution was written.
That's your first clue.
I don't think I know that.
@taiwan_girl said in Common Ground:
@Jolly said in Common Ground:
@taiwan_girl said in Common Ground:
I know this is a discussion that we cannot solve here and I also know that this is a item where peoples minds will probably not be changed, but I do not think it is such a "black and white" issue.
The 2 Amendment 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."
Why then are their restrictions on any types of weapons? Nuclear? Gun that shoots chemicals? Biological weapons?
First, determine who the militia were, when the Constitution was written.
That's your first clue.
I don't think I know that.
It's an easy one.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
The second amendment is horribly written and ambiguous.
What is a “well regulated militia”? Who is regulating it? What is a well-regulated militia vs. a poorly regulated militia?
For most of then nation’s history I think the court did interpret militia as non-individuals.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Common Ground:
@Jolly said in Common Ground:
@taiwan_girl said in Common Ground:
I know this is a discussion that we cannot solve here and I also know that this is a item where peoples minds will probably not be changed, but I do not think it is such a "black and white" issue.
The 2 Amendment 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."
Why then are their restrictions on any types of weapons? Nuclear? Gun that shoots chemicals? Biological weapons?
First, determine who the militia were, when the Constitution was written.
That's your first clue.
I don't think I know that.
It's an easy one.
@Jolly said in Common Ground:
@taiwan_girl said in Common Ground:
@Jolly said in Common Ground:
@taiwan_girl said in Common Ground:
I know this is a discussion that we cannot solve here and I also know that this is a item where peoples minds will probably not be changed, but I do not think it is such a "black and white" issue.
The 2 Amendment 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."
Why then are their restrictions on any types of weapons? Nuclear? Gun that shoots chemicals? Biological weapons?
First, determine who the militia were, when the Constitution was written.
That's your first clue.
I don't think I know that.
It's an easy one.
For you and I it is an easy one as there is only one answer. The People.
But it is a leading question that takes the debate down a rabbit hole of endless discourse. When penned, the framers envisioned individual state regulated militias made up of each state’s male citizens that could be brought together under the banner of United States to defend the country. In their view the USA was a country made up of powerful individual states united as one with a central federal government with narrowly prescribed and only limited powers over those states. Arguably then what the framers actually intended was that the federal government could not infringe upon each state’s right to keep and bear arms in their own state regulated militias.
I do not expect you to agree with that interpretation. But that is at the centre of today’s conversation of what the 2nd Ammendment was all about. Xenon is quite right, the wording is ambiguous as far as its intent.
-
The second amendment is horribly written and ambiguous.
What is a “well regulated militia”? Who is regulating it? What is a well-regulated militia vs. a poorly regulated militia?
For most of then nation’s history I think the court did interpret militia as non-individuals.
