Medicare and Social Security are not entitlements, we pay for them.
THE 2nd AMENDMENT - WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO MEAN
- Thread starter Dachshund
- Start date
Medicare and Social Security are not entitlements, we pay for them.
Into the Night
Verified User
TANSTAAFL. Yes they are!
You're absolutely correct. We could cut it in half and still spend more than any other country. We could make America live up to its promises if we did that. We agree. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blog...-that-eisenhower-every-gun-that-is-made-quote
Social Security is spending what the workers paid into it. Can you understand the difference? It has a 3 trillion dollar fund built up for baby boomers. If we had trillions put aside for the military budget, we would not bitch about it so much.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
The Republican Party has been very successful in convincing people that the Second Amendment guarantees unfettered access to any type of weapon without any common sense rules. The phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” has been lifted from the text of the Second Amendment ignoring the purpose, which was to establish a well ordered Militia that no longer is necessary because the country now has a robust national defense. Just as automobiles, which can be deadly, are subjected to registration, traffic laws, and operator rules concerning alcohol, so, too, use of firearms should also have limitations.
Before you dismiss this comparison, please note it did not come from some liberal or liberal think-tank, but is the expressed opinion of none other than conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger. The pledge of the GOP to defend the Second Amendment is meant to stoke fear in the population that Democrats will take away their guns. Traffic lights, stop signs, yellow lines are meant to keep our roads safe and reasonable, common-sense rules for the use of firearms will stem the epidemic of mass killings in our schools, churches, synagogues, and elsewhere.
Before you dismiss this comparison, please note it did not come from some liberal or liberal think-tank, but is the expressed opinion of none other than conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger. The pledge of the GOP to defend the Second Amendment is meant to stoke fear in the population that Democrats will take away their guns. Traffic lights, stop signs, yellow lines are meant to keep our roads safe and reasonable, common-sense rules for the use of firearms will stem the epidemic of mass killings in our schools, churches, synagogues, and elsewhere.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Perhaps the Constitution’s greatest quality lies in its ability to mean different things to different people. Whether the framers intended the document to be ambiguous or not, the vague wording of the Constitution ensured it would remain relevant for centuries after its creation.
Surely no framer envisioned the invention of the automobile– let alone that his document provided the proper legal mechanisms to ensure automobile safety, to construct a system of national highways for its use, or to regulate its emissions. Yet, the ability of the Constitution to mean different things to different people comes at great cost. Disagreements regarding the meaning of a passage, phrase, or general spirit of the Constitution have and continue to create political and social discord.
The current political controversy surrounding the gun culture in the United States involves the Second Amendment. Gun rights advocates largely ignore the clause before
the comma. They simply emphasize the remainder of the sentence, that people – and, in their mind, private citizens – have the right to bear arms. Supporters of gun
control disagree. They argue that the first portion of the sentence is the purpose of the amendment; the framers sought to protect the collective right of the people to form a
militia. There is no individual right to bear arms, they allege; so, the government can regulate and even prohibit gun ownership. The individual and collective rights
interpretations of the Constitution divide the nation, resulting in numerous Supreme Court cases, political action committees, lobbies, and a host of scholarship concerning
what the founding fathers intended.
Unfortunately for gun rights activists, historical evidence provides no basis for an individual right to firearms. A plain reading of the Second Amendment itself, along with
an examination of the debates during the drafting of the Constitution and the amendment’s ratification show little concern for private firearm rights. Instead, what routinely surfaces in arguments between Federalists and Anti-Federalists is a concern over standing armies, the role of the militia, and determining how the federal government should exercise military power. James Madison introduced the Second Amendment to placate various fears regarding the military, the balance of power between the federal and state governments, and the use of standing armies.
Anti-Federalists were not clamoring for an individual right to gun ownership. Proponents of an individual right to bear arms routinely use Anti-Federalist writings to buttress their argument, which leaves the impression that Anti-Federalists advocated an individual right to firearm possession. The debates regarding the Constitution demonstrated that the role of militias and the creation of standing armies concerned both Anti-Federalists and Federalists.
When conservatives swept into power with the Ronald Reagan presidency, it became popular for many of them to advocate a “return” to the Constitution that the founding fathers intended. Part of this included a pro-gun agenda that rewarded the National Rifle Association – strong backers of the Republican Party. In this interpretation, the Second Amendment served as proof that the founding fathers intended for private citizens to have access to firearms free from government interference. The reasoning used by many conservatives relied upon originalist arguments. The founding fathers, conservatives alleged, intended for the Second Amendment to provide the right of gun ownership to private citizens. Indeed, it is impossible to discuss the Second Amendment without engaging in some sort of originalism. In its simplest form, originalism is the process of determining what the framers meant in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is an incredibly difficult process, one that many historians struggle with. Due to the reverence many Americans have for the founding fathers, it is a powerful tool in any argument to claim that the founders intended for guns to be available without government interference.
Surely no framer envisioned the invention of the automobile– let alone that his document provided the proper legal mechanisms to ensure automobile safety, to construct a system of national highways for its use, or to regulate its emissions. Yet, the ability of the Constitution to mean different things to different people comes at great cost. Disagreements regarding the meaning of a passage, phrase, or general spirit of the Constitution have and continue to create political and social discord.
The current political controversy surrounding the gun culture in the United States involves the Second Amendment. Gun rights advocates largely ignore the clause before
the comma. They simply emphasize the remainder of the sentence, that people – and, in their mind, private citizens – have the right to bear arms. Supporters of gun
control disagree. They argue that the first portion of the sentence is the purpose of the amendment; the framers sought to protect the collective right of the people to form a
militia. There is no individual right to bear arms, they allege; so, the government can regulate and even prohibit gun ownership. The individual and collective rights
interpretations of the Constitution divide the nation, resulting in numerous Supreme Court cases, political action committees, lobbies, and a host of scholarship concerning
what the founding fathers intended.
Unfortunately for gun rights activists, historical evidence provides no basis for an individual right to firearms. A plain reading of the Second Amendment itself, along with
an examination of the debates during the drafting of the Constitution and the amendment’s ratification show little concern for private firearm rights. Instead, what routinely surfaces in arguments between Federalists and Anti-Federalists is a concern over standing armies, the role of the militia, and determining how the federal government should exercise military power. James Madison introduced the Second Amendment to placate various fears regarding the military, the balance of power between the federal and state governments, and the use of standing armies.
Anti-Federalists were not clamoring for an individual right to gun ownership. Proponents of an individual right to bear arms routinely use Anti-Federalist writings to buttress their argument, which leaves the impression that Anti-Federalists advocated an individual right to firearm possession. The debates regarding the Constitution demonstrated that the role of militias and the creation of standing armies concerned both Anti-Federalists and Federalists.
When conservatives swept into power with the Ronald Reagan presidency, it became popular for many of them to advocate a “return” to the Constitution that the founding fathers intended. Part of this included a pro-gun agenda that rewarded the National Rifle Association – strong backers of the Republican Party. In this interpretation, the Second Amendment served as proof that the founding fathers intended for private citizens to have access to firearms free from government interference. The reasoning used by many conservatives relied upon originalist arguments. The founding fathers, conservatives alleged, intended for the Second Amendment to provide the right of gun ownership to private citizens. Indeed, it is impossible to discuss the Second Amendment without engaging in some sort of originalism. In its simplest form, originalism is the process of determining what the framers meant in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is an incredibly difficult process, one that many historians struggle with. Due to the reverence many Americans have for the founding fathers, it is a powerful tool in any argument to claim that the founders intended for guns to be available without government interference.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
It doesn't even make any logical sense that the Constitution provides a clause for armed revolution, but that remains a myth espoused by gun-rights’ advocates. It is foolish to think the founding fathers would establish a government only to provide for its undoing by violent armed mobs. In fact, the militia is responsible for suppressing riots and insurrections in the Constitution.
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
Better to cut the unconstitutional programs of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.
Into the Night
Verified User
They are entitlements. Yes. You pay for them...through the nose.
Communism doesn't work, dude.
Into the Night
Verified User
No government has the authority to pass any of your 'common sense rules', which is banning and limiting guns.
It IS the text of the 2nd amendment, dumbass.
WRONG. It is not necessary to be in a militia to be a people. The States have the right to defend themselves by forming militias, and the people have the right to defend themselves (whether they are in a militia or not!) by owning and carrying any weapon, including any gun.
A national militia. You don't get to cancel the Constitution because you don't think it's necessary anymore.
False equivalence fallacy. A gun is not an automobile.
False equivalence fallacy. A gun is not a bottle of booze. Unconstitutional.
He doesn't have authority to change the Constitution. False authority fallacy.
Democrats ARE trying to take away guns. Are you seriously going to try to deny your own argument, or the statements made by other Democrats and Biden???????!?
No traffic light, stop sign, or yellow line has anything to do with a gun.
It's called murder, dumbass.
You want to stop a murderer? Shoot back.
Gun free zones don't work. They only invite the very mass shootings you are complaining about.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
WRONG. It is very clearly written.
WRONG. It is very clearly written. You are just discarding it.
Irrelevant.
No, it didn't.
It did.
No, it didn't.
No. You don't get to discard the Constitution by 'interpreting' it.
No. People like that discard the Constitution in favor of an oligarchy creates political and social discord.
Repetition fallacy. You do not have to be a member of a militia to be people.
Because you discard the Constitution.
The people do not have the right to form a militia. The States do though. They have the right to self defense, just as every individual does.
Yes there is. Discard of the Constitution.
Unconstitutional.
No. People like you discarding the Constitution divide the nation.
The Supreme Court has no authority to change or interpret the Constitution. See Article III.
You don't get to speak for the dead. The Constitution and only the Constitution is the authoritative reference of the Constitution.
Lie.
Discarding it is not 'plain reading'.
False authority fallacy. The Constitution is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution.
Nah. You just discard the Constitution.
You don't get to speak for the dead.
You don't get to speak for the dead.
Lie. The Constitution is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits any law that infringes the right for States to form a militia to defend themselves, or that infringes the right for any person to defend himself by owning and carrying any weapon, including any gun. This is what the Constitution itself says. It is very clear. You are just discarding it.
Straw man fallacy.
False authority fallacy. Discard of history. Discard of the Constitution.
The NRA isn't the Constitution. False authority fallacy.
You don't get to speak for the dead. False authority fallacy.
So far you have denied most of the Constitution, including Articles I, III, and V, and the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments.
Into the Night
Verified User
Did you forget the Revolutionary war????!?
No. The Revolutionary War is no myth.
Did you forget the Revolutionary War?
Constitutions don't right or are an insurrection.
Into the Night
Verified User
Okay, twit. Stand there and let them shoot YOU.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Nah, I just think it's funny to hear such "big talk" from people. It's hilarious. Like you're some kinda double naught spy James Bond. LOLOL.
Into the Night
Verified User
It doesn't take a James Bond to shoot back, twit.