El Karacho1647545492 Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 I think you misunderstand the history of the second amendment, and also of socialism or communism. Quoted for motherfuckin truth. Ok mike, I know this is gonna piss you off, and you know I agree with you on a lot of 2nd amendment issues, but here's the devil's advocate. "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." That is the text of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. That first half of the sentence is the conditional phrase that 2nd amendment advocates ALWAYS forget. So here's a little bit of military history to give it context: Until World War I, the United States Armed Forces (going under various other names) can be described in three words: small and insignificant. During peacetime, the US Army never really exceeded 25,000 men. Not only that, but in the former half of the 19th century, there was always the threat of Indians, British, French, and Spanish forces from all sides. The Army was poorly funded and was only strengthened in times of war, the idea being that a weak army would dissuade U.S. policy makers from brashly going to war (something the current 509,000 man Army fails to do). Therefore, individuals were much more responsible for their own security on the Western frontier. Also, one must consider the technology involved. The breechloading rifle wasn't mass produced until 1811, and repeating rifles (especially the Winchesters) werent invented until the 1850's and 60's (in versions that really worked). The percussion cap wasn't invented until 1842. In these days, we have the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Guard for each state, which is the most comparable thing to the "militia" system that the United States started out with, despite great differences. Whether you favor interpreting the Constitution or taking it literally, the 2nd Amendment doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Quoted for motherfuckin truth. Ok mike, I know this is gonna piss you off, and you know I agree with you on a lot of 2nd amendment issues, but here's the devil's advocate. "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." That is the text of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. That first half of the sentence is the conditional phrase that 2nd amendment advocates ALWAYS forget. The three commas in the sentence separates two thoughts. Thought one is that a well regulated militia is essential to the security of the state. Thought two is "the peoples " right to bear arms. It says people, not government. The preamble to the constitution says : "We the people", not we the under signers. The term "people" is used to refer to citizens not the government. The only way for a society to maintain power over the government is to be armed to defend against the government. Why do you think Hitler and Stalin took away the arms from the citizens? It was because they knew that the citizens have a very difficult time revolting without arms. This process has occured many time through history P.S. neither of you have addressed my supposed lack of understanding of socialism and communism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 The three commas in the sentence separates two thoughts. Thought one is that a well regulated militia is essential to the security of the state. Thought two is "the peoples " right to bear arms. It says people, not government. The preamble to the constitution says : "We the people", not we the under signers. The term "people" is used to refer to citizens not the government. Beat me to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The three commas in the sentence separates two thoughts. Thought one is that a well regulated militia is essential to the security of the state. Thought two is "the peoples " right to bear arms. It says people, not government. The preamble to the constitution says : "We the people", not we the under signers. The term "people" is used to refer to citizens not the government. The only way for a society to maintain power over the government is to be armed to defend against the government. Why do you think Hitler and Stalin took away the arms from the citizens? It was because they knew that the citizens have a very difficult time revolting without arms. This process has occured many time through history P.S. neither of you have addressed my supposed lack of understanding of socialism and communism Godwins law. You lose the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 If a well regulated militia is essential to the security of the state, then why do we have a large standing army? The DEFINITION of a militia (it is specifically militia, not MILITARY) as it was used then was intended to keep military forces from becoming an instrument of oppression and tyranny throughout the country. The idea was that the people control the armed forces of the country, not the government. Why do you think that the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces is an elected person (and more often than not a CIVILIAN). Because it was determined that countries that had large regular forces often extended their imperial arm to colonize other countries. Seriously, dudes, you've got to read up on your American military history before you go spouting off about the constitution. Also, grammatically, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is an adjective clause modifying the phrase "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Only one comma. Therefore, the adjective clause modifies the main clause, essentially saying that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State." Now that we have numerous regular forces (509k Army, 180k Marines, etc.) we don't need a local militia force for the security of the state. If you were truly an antifederalist, you would support drastic reductions in the size and funding of the United States Armed Forces...if you purport to be the well regulated and armed militia of the United States, why should my tax dollars go to building ICBM's and B-2 bombers? Why shouldn't the government just stop making me pay to support a $400 billion dollar war in Iraq and tell me to buy my own goddamn AK-47 to shoot up every Arab I see in our airports? /thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The national guard serves as our militia, since Roosevelt. Not the Armed Forces. The point is they must be seperate. Edit: Rick, do you take issue with a large Muslim sect stockpiling automatic weapons and explosives? Their right to keep those weapons to defend themselves from a "tyrannical government" is in esence what you are arguing for. If that Muslim group (just an example) takes it upon themselves to defend their personal rights, are they acting in accordance with what the writers of the Constitution meant? How do you feel about the invasion of the Branch Davidians? Timothy McVeigh was doing the same thing as well. Are these people terrorists or patriots? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The national guard serves as our militia, since Roosevelt. Not the Armed Forces. The point is they must be seperate. Edit: Rick, do you take issue with a large Muslim sect stockpiling automatic weapons and explosives? Their right to keep those weapons to defend themselves from a "tyrannical government" is in esence what you are arguing for. If that Muslim group (just an example) takes it upon themselves to defend their personal rights, are they acting in accordance with what the writers of the Constitution meant? How do you feel about the invasion of the Branch Davidians? Timothy McVeigh was doing the same thing as well. Are these people terrorists or patriots? Since the 1930's automatic weapons cannot just be sold to anyone. special permitting is required. Explosives are not legal to own unless you have the right license. So they would be in violation of our current laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 If a well regulated militia is essential to the security of the state, then why do we have a large standing army? The DEFINITION of a militia (it is specifically militia, not MILITARY) as it was used then was intended to keep military forces from becoming an instrument of oppression and tyranny throughout the country. The idea was that the people control the armed forces of the country, not the government. Why do you think that the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces is an elected person (and more often than not a CIVILIAN). Because it was determined that countries that had large regular forces often extended their imperial arm to colonize other countries. Seriously, dudes, you've got to read up on your American military history before you go spouting off about the constitution. Also, grammatically, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is an adjective clause modifying the phrase "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Only one comma. Therefore, the adjective clause modifies the main clause, essentially saying that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State." Now that we have numerous regular forces (509k Army, 180k Marines, etc.) we don't need a local militia force for the security of the state. If you were truly an antifederalist, you would support drastic reductions in the size and funding of the United States Armed Forces...if you purport to be the well regulated and armed militia of the United States, why should my tax dollars go to building ICBM's and B-2 bombers? Why shouldn't the government just stop making me pay to support a $400 billion dollar war in Iraq and tell me to buy my own goddamn AK-47 to shoot up every Arab I see in our airports? /thread. Re read the second amendment you lost a comma. Also must have never studied lexicology. The interrelation of the words is very important. Our standing military has grown due to other counties being a potential threat. "Militias" are still and important part of the second amendment. Look at the civil war. And if you think civil wars in the US cant happen again, you are fooling yourself... Still no one has addressed how I don't understand communism and socialism! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHaze Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 How do you feel about the invasion of the Branch Davidians? Timothy McVeigh was doing the same thing as well. Are these people terrorists or patriots? Several Branch Douchebagists were also convicted in aiding and comitting manslaughter, seperate from the FBI/ATF raid. Doesn't sound very patriotic to me. Timothy McVeigh blew up innocent people and even children in a daycare center: I'm not sure how you wouldn't consider this domestic terrorism. Thse people are nothing short of insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Re read the second amendment you lost a comma. Also must have never studied lexicology. The interrelation of the words is very important. Our standing military has grown due to other counties being a potential threat. "Militias" are still and important part of the second amendment. Look at the civil war. And if you think civil wars in the US cant happen again, you are fooling yourself... Still no one has addressed how I don't understand communism and socialism! Ok I acknowledge that I was wrong about the number of commas. In that case, I want you to put in layman's terms a quick sentence that would convey the meaning of the second amendment. 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. So what is "being necessary to the security of a free State" in reference to? The right of the people to bear arms? OR a well regulated militia? The National Guard is NOT the modern-day militia. The militia, by definition, is comrpised of ALL ABLE-BODIED MEN of a certain age range...in colonial America it was 16-65. Now I believe it is 18-45, but I'm not sure. Still, the National Guard is a volunteer force that is maintained by the state government and can be called forth by the federal government, as has been done in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHaze Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The puncuation often fluctuates as I have seen. For instance, many gov't publications use the 2nd amendment with 1 comma while the real thing uses 3. To me, taking a literal meaning of the sentence is pointless. Now look back at the time in which this amendment came aboot: Being the weakling newborn country we were, under the Articles of Confederation, there were problems with creating a military force to defend against an uprising that was Shay's Rebellion. Having a lack of fed-force is a bad thing, so what are the people to do in a situation where no military is present to defend them? Do you know who defeated the Shaysites? A private MILITIA (Massachusetts militia), not a federal army. What does this mean today now that we have an established military/ enforcement presence? Well, crime is a lot different and prevalent nowadays compared to the early days. Much more violent and secretive crimes are being committed, some that go unoticed until too late. This is why I believe there should be ratification to what modern day conditions are and in this case, I should be able to possess a firearm to defend myself if necesary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Still no one has addressed how I don't understand communism and socialism! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The puncuation often fluctuates as I have seen. For instance, many gov't publications use the 2nd amendment with 1 comma while the real thing uses 3. To me, taking a literal meaning of the sentence is pointless. National Archives The original handwritten version had the comma. You are right about the comma being left out in some publications. To understand the writings of the authors, you have to think about the time period when it was written. Now look back at the time in which this amendment came aboot: Being the weakling newborn country we were, under the Articles of Confederation, there were problems with creating a military force to defend against an uprising that was Shay's Rebellion. Having a lack of fed-force is a bad thing, so what are the people to do in a situation where no military is present to defend them? Do you know who defeated the Shaysites? A private MILITIA (Massachusetts militia), not a federal army. Nicely said What does this mean today now that we have an established military/ enforcement presence? Well, crime is a lot different and prevalent nowadays compared to the early days. Much more violent and secretive crimes are being committed, some that go unoticed until too late. This is why I believe there should be ratification to what modern day conditions are and in this case, I should be able to possess a firearm to defend myself if necesary. I will disagree with you about changing the wording of the second amendment. I think it is fine the way it is. The danger in changing it is the heavy political influence of the anti gun lobbies will step in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The puncuation often fluctuates as I have seen. For instance, many gov't publications use the 2nd amendment with 1 comma while the real thing uses 3. To me, taking a literal meaning of the sentence is pointless. Now look back at the time in which this amendment came aboot: Being the weakling newborn country we were, under the Articles of Confederation, there were problems with creating a military force to defend against an uprising that was Shay's Rebellion. Having a lack of fed-force is a bad thing, so what are the people to do in a situation where no military is present to defend them? Do you know who defeated the Shaysites? A private MILITIA (Massachusetts militia), not a federal army. What does this mean today now that we have an established military/ enforcement presence? Well, crime is a lot different and prevalent nowadays compared to the early days. Much more violent and secretive crimes are being committed, some that go unoticed until too late. This is why I believe there should be ratification to what modern day conditions are and in this case, I should be able to possess a firearm to defend myself if necesary. well put. I just really have a hard time with hardliners for either side, whether it is those who ignore the idea of the militia no longer being necessary to our security and simply say "I want to have as many of whatever kind of guns I want and I don't want the government snooping" or those who say "now that we have an army and police we're perfectly safe from everything and no one needs guns" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Since the 1930's automatic weapons cannot just be sold to anyone. special permitting is required. Explosives are not legal to own unless you have the right license. So they would be in violation of our current laws. But the second amendment states "right to bear arms", not firearms. Perhaps those weapons are crucial in securing just those freedoms that the second amendment was designed to protect. Don't those laws infringe on our right to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Still no one has addressed how I don't understand communism and socialism! Please describe what you understand about the theories of those types of governments, and how you feel your post about the ACLU supports your case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 The three commas in the sentence separates two thoughts. In English (which is what these men spoke) periods separated thoughts, not commas. Damned public skools. RE; Shays rebellion. It wasn't a military loss. Also, read the events leading up to it and the motivations of him and his "rebel army". He was a patriot, which is probably why he was pardoned so quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Please describe what you understand about the theories of those types of governments, and how you feel your post about the ACLU supports your case. easy.... both of those types always lead to human suffering. They will always fail, due to taking away natural human desire to improve ones self. Taking from one person to give to another is not an idea that I like. On top of that both of those systems tend to develop a small group of individuals that retain control through intimidation and/or outright killing. If that is the agenda of the ACLU, I stand firm in saying they do no represent the ideals of America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 In English (which is what these men spoke) periods separated thoughts, not commas. Damned public skools. Wrong... can be both ways! Pass six grade English then comment I will make it easy for you: Having finished the test, he left the room.(finishing test and leaving room) To get a seat, you'd better come early.( the need to get a seat and come early) The sun radiating intense heat, we sought shelter in the cafe.(The sun radiating heat and seeking shelter) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Wrong... can be both ways! Pass six grade English then comment I will make it easy for you: Having finished the test, he left the room.(finishing test and leaving room) To get a seat, you'd better come early.( the need to get a seat and come early) The sun radiating intense heat, we sought shelter in the cafe.(The sun radiating heat and seeking shelter) Ell Oh Ell! You just proved my point and contradicted yourself. Those are all two parts of one idea, each pertaining to the other. One sentence, one idea. "I like toast, but not without butter" does not mean that I like to eat butter on it's own. That would be "I like toast. I love to eat butter." Just like you said, I will make it easy for you: Having finished the test, he left the room.(Leaving the room was contingent on finishing the test) To get a seat, you'd better come early.(Getting the seat is contingent on early arival) The sun radiating intense heat, we sought shelter in the cafe.(needing shelter as a result of the suns heat) 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. (The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, because of the need for the populous to defend the free state). If the need for the general population's help in defending the free state dissapears (like, ohh, I dunno, The Militia Act of 1903 organizes the state militias into the National Guard system), then the need for the people to bear arms also disapears. What you want Amend-2 to say is "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Imagine if your interpretation of laws applied across the board: "Tresspassing without your permission is forbidden, you are permitted to beat the hell out of people that do it." OMG I'm alowed to beat people everywhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 easy.... both of those types always lead to human suffering. They will always fail, due to taking away natural human desire to improve ones self. Taking from one person to give to another is not an idea that I like. On top of that both of those systems tend to develop a small group of individuals that retain control through intimidation and/or outright killing. If that is the agenda of the ACLU, I stand firm in saying they do no represent the ideals of America. I think you need to look up the definition of "always", and be careful where you use it in a sentence. Are you in favor of the US being a purely capitalist economy, or do you feel that we should have a mixed economy? Be careful, my response is dependent on your answer. Edit: Wrong... can be both ways! Pass six grade English then comment A sixth grader would have been able to write that sentence correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Ell Oh Ell! You just proved my point and contradicted yourself. Those are all two parts of one idea, each pertaining to the other. One sentence, one idea. "I like toast, but not without butter" does not mean that I like to eat butter on it's own. That would be "I like toast. I love to eat butter." Just like you said, I will make it easy for you: Having finished the test, he left the room.(Leaving the room was contingent on finishing the test) To get a seat, you'd better come early.(Getting the seat is contingent on early arival) The sun radiating intense heat, we sought shelter in the cafe.(needing shelter as a result of the suns heat) 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. (The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, because of the need for the populous to defend the free state). If the need for the general population's help in defending the free state dissapears (like, ohh, I dunno, The Militia Act of 1903 organizes the state militias into the National Guard system), then the need for the people to bear arms also disapears. What you want Amend-2 to say is "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Imagine if your interpretation of laws applied across the board: "Tresspassing without your permission is forbidden, you are permitted to beat the hell out of people that do it." OMG I'm alowed to beat people everywhere? just waiting for you to cut and run again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 I think you need to look up the definition of "always", and be careful where you use it in a sentence. Are you in favor of the US being a purely capitalist economy, or do you feel that we should have a mixed economy? Be careful, my response is dependent on your answer. Can you think of a successful socialist or communist state? A purely capitalist state is as unreasonable as a pure socialistic/communistic state. We need to be more capitalistic for economic and scientific growth. The reality is people will chase a dollar. If money is to made by developing a product, it will come about. No financial incentive will foster complacency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Can you think of a successful socialist or communist state? Egypt, Venezuela, India, Portugal...I can go on. A purely capitalist state is as unreasonable as a pure socialistic/communistic state. We need to be more capitalistic for economic and scientific growth. The reality is people will chase a dollar. If money is to made by developing a product, it will come about. No financial incentive will foster complacency. Agreed. The problem is the influence that large corporations have over the government. Our legislative system represents those who can pay for influence, and to me, that is not the majority of the people. Our laws on monopolies are representative of socialist ideals. Another problem is the idiotic welfare system we have that puts people off of social funding. I think a welfare system is necessary, and I think ours is inadequate and ineffective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hwilli1647545487 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 and I think ours is inadequate and ineffective. I think you are inadequate and ineffective. ARGUE LIKE A FUCKING HUMAN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.