How should I proceed?

[Prophet]

Hello, THR community. Being a senior in high school, I usually don't take time from my studies to "debate" with people who simply do not understand the ethics of liberty. However, the recent Starbucks fiasco drew me in, and now I find myself in a debate. My opponent is hell-bent on the idea that the Second Amendment does not recognize the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms. In fact, he is quite clear that he believes no such right exists. I do not know how to proceed and am pondering whether I should continue to argue or just let it ride.

Here is the debate up to the current point. To respect the privacy of my opponent, I shall call him "opponent".

I cannot find the first post made by my opponent. He stated that the Second Amendment didn't apply in any way to the average citizen and only to the militia (and I understand that the militia technically still exists with the people to some extent, but that is beside the point).

If the founding fathers intended the second amendment as you say they did, then why did they say these things?
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...htm&h=53eed34f3fba67defacd6eed20077552&ref=nf

I do not dispute those quotes, but most are partial quotes........the rest are quotes applicable to the thime in which they were said.......and all of the quotes like everyhitng said on every subject ever spoken about is "hear say"..........the truth is in the law.

Either you dispute the quotes or you do not. The direct quotes provided are verifiable.

How are these quotes any less applicable to their times than ours? Are you suggesting there was more need to defend yourself from aggressors than now?

If the law is to be interpreted in any way other than the creators of that law meant it to be interpreted, what point is there in law? Furthermore, how is your interpretation of the Second Amendment any more applicable than the very founders of that law, or the slew of court decisions made in the United States verifying the fact that citizens reserve the right to keep and bear personal arms?

Would you also apply your interpretation of "the right of the people" referenced to in the Second Amendment to other rights recognized by the Constitution? Such as the right to peaceably assemble or to be free from unlawful searches and seizures? I would suppose they had more need of those things as well, did they not? We should scrap them, just like Nazi Germany did.

Regardless of our "interpretations" of the law, I still find it odd that anyone would disregard innocent life to a point that they would deny it the basic right to defend itself from those that would wish to do it harm, and in doing so give rapists, thieves and murderers the leeway to do so. I also find it odd that you would deny American citizens one of the very rights that allows you or I or anyone else to have any say in the matter whatsoever. If the citizens allow themselves to be disarmed, they are no longer free citizens but serfs and subjects to whatever governing authority is in power. God forbid it be a governing authority like Nazi Germany or Rwanda, whose rise and eventual defeat relied in part on the citizens willingness to release or take up their arms. I prefer a government like Switzerlands. Ever wonder how they managed to stay neutral through two European-based world wars? Do some research on that.

Sir, my only desire is that people reserve their rights. If you do not want to take advantage of those rights, then you don't have to and we will not demand that you do so. However, we ask that you do the same in return.

edit; Nazi Germany's defeat, as Rwanda is still in turmoil.

for over 10,000 years it was belived that the world was flat.......come to find out, all those quotes about the earth being flat were not true.......up until the 14th century, educated men thought the earth revolved around the moon, and in America women were not given the right to vote........what do you make of that????????

You have plenty of rights, but you are not allowed to have all the rights, I have rights too......and if you read fuirther on int he constitution you will understand that.

this is not my interpretation of the constitution, ever......it is the actual constitution, read it....

And as long as mankind and his governments have existed, populaces have chosen to go unarmed and suffered horribly for it. Populaces that chose to stay armed, thrived. It is why the United States thrived and continues to thrive. Any supposition to the opposite is the result of a failed understanding of history. It is through our history, our mistakes that we create a better future. Not by continuing to repeat them. I do believe that Einstein said that was the definition of insanity. But then again, just hearsay.

I do not care what albert Einstein said, I do not care what Herb Alpert said, I do not care about anything in th is case...........(i repeat, in this case) except for the law.

And the law disagrees with you.

apparently you have not read the law, it disagrees with you

(in an attempt to remove myself from the argument) Suit yourself.

I do not have to suit myslef, I am already "suited" what I have to do is elevate people like you to know the law and to know their rights as well as everybody else's rights. You do not live in this country by yourself, and that is what you people always think.......it's mt right to have a gun, it's my right to have a gun.......when in fact it is not and when in fact your "imagined" rights have allowed for irresponsibility beyond calculation.

It is my desire for people to know and understand the truth, and it tears me up when I see someone blindly following a lie. At the same time however, I feel like thumping that individual over the head for being so naive, and this attitude shows in my debating. You'll notice that I did get quite short with my opponent near the end. I realize this and know that I should have handled the debate more tactfully. I'm sure a lot of you will take note of this and tell me where I went wrong, and please don't refrain from doing so; I've got thick skin and I know I'll never learn without making mistakes.

 

[mljdeckard]

Remind him that regardless of how HE interprets the Second Amendment, The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Any other right specifically named in the Bill of Rights refers to individuals, and to believe that the right to keep and bear arms is any different requires an active imagination and poor grammar.

Self defense is a fundamental human right. Keeping and bearing arms is derivative of this right. To say otherwise is to say that you have the right to a free press, but not the right to own a printer.

And remember, you aren't going to convince anyone. ... (removed)

 

[Texas Gun Person]

You will never win against a person like that... especially on the internet. When he responded to you saying, "suit yourself" I would of dropped it right there. Some people just think they have something to prove, and more than likely he only acts like that while on the internet. It's a problem with some people.

 

[Warhawk83]

It pains me that guns have protected this idiot, he'd be speaking German were it not for America's right to bear arms.

 

[Cougfan2]

Move on. Debating someone like your opponent is like arguing with a pig. It just frustrates you and the pig will never understand anyway.

 

[Sam1911]

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Any other right specifically named in the Bill of Rights refers to individuals, and to believe that the right to keep and bear arms is any different requires an active imagination and poor grammar.

This is really all you need to present the exact rebuttal to his point. Look up the "Heller" decision. You could explain in about two sentences that the Supreme Court has stated that the 2nd Amendment "guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."

Check wiki for a layman's level explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And with that you should end your participation in the debate. After that, there IS no debate unless he wants to change the subject of the debate, and that would be intellectually dishonest.

 

[JR]

Delete him from your 'facebook' friends... You win debate.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Substitute a few words in the 2A:

A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read literature shall not be infringed.

Have him read that and ask him if that would mean that only those who are over 18 and registered to vote would be allowed to read books.

 

[Noxx]

People who use multiple question marks in an attempt to increase their veracity are not debating, they are arguing. Nobody wins arguments, dump it.

 

[semperfi63]

point him to the majority decision in Heller. It is the best discussion of the meaning, intent, and case law on the 2nd amendment. Also it has the benefit of being written by one of the finest legal scholars of our time. Then when your opponent disagrees, tell him to take up further arguments with Scalia himself.

 

[TexasBill]

A decent knowledge of English grammar is your friend in this case. The Second Amendment begins with a dependent clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," that depends on the independent clause, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," to have meaning. In other words, the militia cannot exist without the people keeping and bearing arms.

The right to keep and bear arms actually predates the Constitution, having its origins in English Common Law. In fact, the framers of the Constitution believed the right to keep and bear arms existed independently of the Constitution and limited the power of the government by saying that right shall not be infringed.

And that, folks, has been the law of the land since December 15, 1791.

Your opponent might or might not believe that. Then again, your opponent might or might not be an idiot. Judging from the responses, which appear to be made up out of thin air, I am inclined to believe your opponent is likely arguing from the low end of the Bell curve.

 

[Prophet]

Thank you everyone, you've all been very helpful. I've made my last statement and cut off contact. I've got a lot of studying to do this evening... I'm homeschooled and my schedule is a little different; classes tomorrow, a class the next day, and drivers test the next. :banghead:

I'll try and get back online tomorrow with what I wrote if I have time.

Much thanks!

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Print out a copy of Heller, available here http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf. Then tell him that his opinion is absolutely irrelevant since the Supreme Court has squarely and recently rejected it.

 

[Locnar]

Your opponent is grossly misinformed. I'll try to pick it apart as much as I can (basically, until my attention span goes kaput).

I do not dispute those quotes, but most are partial quotes........the rest are quotes applicable to the thime in which they were said.......and all of the quotes like everyhitng said on every subject ever spoken about is "hear say"..........the truth is in the law.

This is a very typical liberal arguing tactic I call the "shotgun approach." Throw out a ridiculous number of opinions, none of which are backed up by fact, and assume that, since you can only argue against one at a time, you have quietly submitted to the others. Once you have nailed him down on one, he jumps to another, completely abandoning his original argument. The truth is not in "the law," the truth is in the interpretation of the constitution, (even then its sketchy. Jim Crow laws, were after all, considered constitutional for a time). However, the Supreme Court has upheld the INDIVIDUAL'S right to own a firearm.

for over 10,000 years it was belived that the world was flat.......come to find out, all those quotes about the earth being flat were not true.......up until the 14th century, educated men thought the earth revolved around the moon, and in America women were not given the right to vote........what do you make of that????????

You have plenty of rights, but you are not allowed to have all the rights, I have rights too......and if you read fuirther on int he constitution you will understand that.

this is not my interpretation of the constitution, ever......it is the actual constitution, read it....

Hauss needs a history lesson. Ancient Egypt, Greece, Persia and a few others knew the Earth was round (in fact, recent studies of the pyramids suggest that the Egyptians knew EXACTLY how large the Earth is).

Same goes with the SUN revolving around the EARTH (dude should learn his celestial bodies). Medieval Catholics found an astrological diagram in the rubble of a Gnostic temple they burned to the ground, showing the Earth at the center of "the universe," with a sort of "Here be dragons" beyond the constellations and ran with it.

And yes, women didn't have the right to vote because it was considered that they couldn't understand the issues. We corrected that and ended up with Obama. (No flames on that please, its intended tongue and cheek).

Not allowed to have "all the rights"? So the govt can pick and choose which rights you can have? Or can YOU decide?

I do not have to suit myslef, I am already "suited" what I have to do is elevate people like you to know the law and to know their rights as well as everybody else's rights. You do not live in this country by yourself, and that is what you people always think.......it's mt right to have a gun, it's my right to have a gun.......when in fact it is not and when in fact your "imagined" rights have allowed for irresponsibility beyond calculation.

His spelling and grammatical errors prevent me from adequately responding to this razor sharp attack (yawn), but at least we have the basis for his argument: your "imagined" rights have allowed for irresponsibility beyond calculation. From that point, its very easy to demonstrate that the "irresponsibility" of evil gun owners generally comes from (SHOCK!) criminals who obtain their guns illegally!

Typically, here is where people say, "Canada has a lower crime rate than the U.S. and they don't have easy access to guns." Here is where you throw in the little fact that if you controlled for black on black crime, the United States' crime rate is lower than Canada's. That one usually ends arguments.

 

[Sam1911]

Good on you for being mature enough to step away from a pointless and unwinable argument. There is a fine line between not allowing false and harmful public statements to go unchallenged and being drawn into a suckers' debate.

As a Pennsylvanian father of a small pile of homeschooled kids, I hope they're as articulate and dedicated as you appear to be when they reach your age.

Good luck with your tests!

 

[pty101]

ya debate is futile with these kind of people and ya it sucks that we even have to have this debate. My favorite reason for the 2a is that is prevented the Japanese from invading the US mainland. "You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)

 

[tobyjones]

I was going to make a smart alec (but true) comment about even discussing firearms is enough to be considered a threat in many schools but since you are home schooled your district may have different rules

 

[rha600]

Remind him that regardless of how HE interprets the Second Amendment, The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Any other right specifically named in the Bill of Rights refers to individuals, and to believe that the right to keep and bear arms is any different requires an active imagination and poor grammar.

Self defense is a fundamental human right. Keeping and bearing arms is derivative of this right. To say otherwise is to say that you have the right to a free press, but not the right to own a printer.

And remember, you aren't going to convince anyone. (removed)

what he said.

I know i'm late to this but it seems that "he" is one of the people that believes the law is saying that people in a militia in a time of war or invasion have the right to bear arms and that it's not a general statement. But in that the Supreme court (pretty much the head of his all loving maker of laws) says that you are correct and he is wrong.

With that said I think "he" is a waste of time to argue the point with. this person obviously has tunnle vision and is only seeing the subject in their own way. They've made that clear many times.

 

[Prophet]

Okay everyone, I'm back for the moment.

It pains me that guns have protected this idiot, he'd be speaking German were it not for America's right to bear arms.

Yeah, I did spread the Nazi Germany argument on a little thick. I think it's a result of my taking a modern-wars specific class this past school year and watching Defiance a couple of days ago. Good movie about the Partisans and Jewish resistance during WWII.

A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read literature shall not be infringed.

This is genius, Occams Razor. I even had to sit down and ponder that one for a moment. It pretty much destroys any interpretation of the Second Amendment other than the correct one.

Your opponent is grossly misinformed. I'll try to pick it apart as much as I can (basically, until my attention span goes kaput).

Thank you for putting your attention span in jeopardy of a kaput for the sake of my thread. You've provided me with a bit of a history lesson as well and encouraged me to do some research on those subjects you mentioned, specifically on the possibility of the Egyptians knowing the exact size of the earth. I'm also following the new thread you've created in Activism.

Good on you for being mature enough to step away from a pointless and unwinable argument. There is a fine line between not allowing false and harmful public statements to go unchallenged and being drawn into a suckers' debate.

As a Pennsylvanian father of a small pile of homeschooled kids, I hope they're as articulate and dedicated as you appear to be when they reach your age.

Good luck with your tests!

Thank you for the kind words and encouragement, sir. As a homeschooler, I reserve a special respect for those parents who sacrifice for the education of their children by homeschooling. It will be worth it when you can look back and realize that your kids grew up learning the values of their parents and not those of a decrementing society. You'll know you've provided them with an excellent education when they start teaching you things.

Thanks to everyone else who replied to this thread. Responses like these are encouraging as I oftentimes find myself doubting the existence of freedom-loving patriots in this country. Your responses also helped me to create a final response for the argument. Here it is for anyone interested.

Okay. Let's change up the subject matter for a moment;

A well educated electorate, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read literature shall not be infringed.

By your definition of the 2A, does that mean only those who are over 18 and registered to vote would be permitted to read books?

Regardless, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.

And that is the law.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

If your argumentative counterpart leans too heavily on what he thinks the militia is, consider this (especially b.2):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

Title 10, chapter 13, U.S. Code.

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[luigi]

One thing that I see being overlooked here is that "opponent" isn't your target here. He's not going to change his mind no matter what you say. You want to frame your argument so that it impacts the observers who are fence sitters.

 

[Fremmer]

This is genius, Occams Razor.

Occam's Razor it is not, lol. It is a poor analogy at best.

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is clearly recorded in the Bill or Rights. Its correct legal interpretation is stated in the Heller case. The majority in Heller soundly rejected many of your friend's arguments, and you simply need to use the findings and holdings in Heller to refute his arguments. You don't need weak analogies involving other constitutional rights to educate him about his Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms. Take a close look at Heller, and then let us know what you think.

 

[akodo]

Here's how I would go

I do not care what albert Einstein said, I do not care what Herb Alpert said, I do not care about anything in th is case...........(i repeat, in this case) except for the law.

Fair enough. Then here is the law: 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.

And then define the debate into two chunks. Say 'Sir, apparently you are hanging up n the first section "A well regulated militia Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State" and exactly what a Militia is. I happen to view that section as not relevant, but for the sake of argument, let's flesh it out.

The Constitution and it's Amendments are law, yes? are law, AS THEY ARE WRITTEN, yes?

(he'll have a hard time arguing that)

Sir, you try and dismiss my quotes as 'not relevant to these modern times' but apparently you misunderstood me. I don't bring up these quotes as if they were law, I bring them up to help define the words in the Constitution.

If Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, or whoever, uses a specific word in the constitution, and then later on in his own diaries, letters, newspaper articles, etc, defines the very word he uses, then these 'quotes' are directly impacting how the law needs to be read.

Surely, you realize the key to understanding a law is to know what was meant by each word AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN, and a current definition of the word is not relevant.

Example, we have laws that allow 'colored folk' to vote. The word Colored is not used any more, surely if someone denied an African American the right to vote, we would look at how the term Colored was used back when the law was written, and realize it equals the current term of 'African American Citizen' Now, Colored was used pretty commonly 50 years ago, so we have a pretty good idea of what it means, even though it isn't common. But what about 200 years from now? Then we would use writings of the period to define what the term Colored meant.

 

[Art Eatman]

Fremmer, I think that bit about the well-educated electorate, etc., first showed up when the word came out that in Ceaucescu's Rumania, mimeograph machines had to be registered with his government. Maybe during the runup to GCA '68, when "old" Senator Dodd wanted to ban all handguns and register all long guns.

 

[Fremmer]

It is a poor analogy. The second amendment clearly means what it says and says what it means, at least according to Heller. Some other case involving a completely different Constitutional right has nothing to do with the individual right to keep and bear arms. A First Amendment claim is much different than a Second Amendment claim -- obviously because the contstitutional rights are completely different. Anyway, Heller dispenses with the need to try and compare the Second Amendment with some other Amendment as justification that an individual has an individual right to keep and bear arms.