[split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2016, 10:12 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(23-06-2016 09:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  Militias are self-organizing, not instruments of the government, with their own arms and their own organization. [...]

I think this might be splitting hairs Chas?

When the second amendment was ratified in December 1791, the word militia dated back to the late 16th century when it was first recorded in a book by Englishman Sir John Smythe, "Certain Discourses Military" with the following meanings, —a military force; a body of soldiers and military affairs; a body of military discipline.
Nothing about a civilian force.
(Smythe also proposed that the longbow was a superior weapon to the musket!)

And an excerpt from Quora Aug 2014:

Quote:Of the 23 members of the Pennsylvania delegation to the Constitutional convention who voted against ratification, 21 signed a dissenting address that appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser on December 18, 1787. They offered their own arguments and proposed some additions regarding the Constitution [...]

7. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.

Ralph Ketcham ed., The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, 2003.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Here is the problem with the whole "second amendment is only made for a militia" argument, and that is assuming that the constitution can't change. That would be no different than some one saying that the constitution was made for only white men there for minorities shouldn't have any rights. Using the original intention of the constitution as an argument is a bad one.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 10:19 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(27-06-2016 10:12 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(23-06-2016 09:18 AM)Chas Wrote:  Militias are self-organizing, not instruments of the government, with their own arms and their own organization. [...]

I think this might be splitting hairs Chas?

Splitting hairs? No, I think this is a central point regarding the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.

Quote:When the second amendment was ratified in December 1791, the word militia dated back to the late 16th century when it was first recorded in a book by Englishman Sir John Smythe, "Certain Discourses Military" with the following meanings, —a military force; a body of soldiers and military affairs; a body of military discipline.
Nothing about a civilian force.

And nothing about a professional military force.

Quote:(Smythe also proposed that the longbow was a superior weapon to the musket!)

And an excerpt from Quora Aug 2014:

Quote:Of the 23 members of the Pennsylvania delegation to the Constitutional convention who voted against ratification, 21 signed a dissenting address that appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser on December 18, 1787. They offered their own arguments and proposed some additions regarding the Constitution [...]

7. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.

Ralph Ketcham ed., The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, 2003.

Yes, among the dissents were the ones like that that wanted more clarity.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 10:25 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(27-06-2016 10:14 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  Here is the problem with the whole "second amendment is only made for a militia" argument, and that is assuming that the constitution can't change. That would be no different than some one saying that the constitution was made for only white men there for minorities shouldn't have any rights. Using the original intention of the constitution as an argument is a bad one.

Who changed it? The Supreme Court? The Constitution doesn't give that power.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 10:26 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Quote:7. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.
Yeah, like people carrying guns in bars and buses.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 10:40 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(27-06-2016 10:26 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
Quote:7. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.
Yeah, like people carrying guns in bars and buses.

That is not at all what that phrase means. Facepalm

It means danger from particular individuals.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 10:53 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(27-06-2016 10:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 10:26 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Yeah, like people carrying guns in bars and buses.

That is not at all what that phrase means. Facepalm

It means danger from particular individuals.

Yeah, that particular individual on the bus with a gun.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 10:54 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(27-06-2016 10:53 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 10:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is not at all what that phrase means. Facepalm

It means danger from particular individuals.

Yeah, that particular individual on the bus with a gun.

But not some other individual on the bus with a gun.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 11:04 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Still doesn't make any sense.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 11:07 AM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(27-06-2016 11:04 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  Still doesn't make any sense.

What doesn't make any sense?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: