Need help in an argument

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LtShortcut

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
71
Location
South East USA
I'm having a discussion with a person on the 2nd ammendment, here is the discussion so far:

THEM:

Meaning the right exists in the context of a "well regulated militia".

ME:

Quick question: How do you reconcile your view with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

THEM:

Private carriage that does not infringe the security rights of neighbors.

What's a well reasoned argument to shut them down? Or at least make them understand that they are not making sense?

I'm terrible in these discussions, I know what I want to say, just not how.

Thanks.
 
The obvious answer would be:

Them: Meaning the right exists in the context of a "well regulated militia".

You: No it doesn't. It's an Individual Right separate from the militia. Read DC v. Heller


The other alternative would be to ask what right to security they think exists.
 
What in the world does "security rights of neighbors" mean. Him being uncomfortable with you having a gun doesn't mean you are infringing on any 'right' of his.
 
THEM:

Private carriage that does not infringe the security rights of neighbors
Click to expand...
What in the heck does this even mean? DOes anyone know?

What's a well reasoned argument to shut them down? Or at least make them understand that they are not making sense?
Click to expand...
Probably impossible. Most people capable of making the statement quoted above are incapable of rational thought.
 
actually it wasn't until after the 14th amendement's due process that guns became anything other than militia. Prior to it was only for the militia.

So they are right, and you are right.
 
Some people on my side of the aisle think like this: guns=bad guys, rednecks, morans, militia nut, violent.

Prime their brains differently, like per say, show them a list of people that they associate with good things and guns rights.

My gf was one of them.

I showed her otherwise.
 
From what I've read, the original meaning of militia was everybody (at least all men) not actually in the armed forces, who should be well-regulated: meet to practice often so they knew what they were doing individually and communally.
 
Look at the Bill of Rights as a whole. All of the other 9 amendments limit the authority of a central government while preserving the rights of an individual human being.

With that view, the Second Amendment is clearly an individual right.
 
The collective right theory was laid to rest by Heller and McDonald. So according to the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment describes an individual right unconnected with any militia; so the OP's friend's is wrong.

OP, give your buddy the texts of the opinions. Let the Supreme Court do your talking for you.
 
Private carriage that does not infringe the security rights of neighbors.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand what this means, but I'm assuming it means that neighbors could be affraid their security is violated when you (or someone else) is carrying a firearm around them.

If thats the case, then they can move to a state that does not allow carry, so they will never have to worry. 48 States (hopefully Wisconsin soon, too!) give you the right to carry in some way/shape/form, and thats that.
 
In general, it's a good idea to get to know your Supreme Court rulings relating to individual rights.

DC v. Heller
McDonald v. Chicago
Plessy v. Ferguson
Roe v. Wade
and so on and so forth.
 
LtShortcut said:
I'm having a discussion with a person on the 2nd ammendment, here is the discussion so far:

THEM:

Meaning the right exists in the context of a "well regulated militia".

ME:

Quick question: How do you reconcile your view with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

THEM:

Private carriage that does not infringe the security rights of neighbors.

What's a well reasoned argument to shut them down? Or at least make them understand that they are not making sense?

I'm terrible in these discussions, I know what I want to say, just not how.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
All citizens (at least men 17-45 I think it is) are required to sign up for Selective Service.

We are the "well-regulated militia."

So, there you go.
 
In general, it's a good idea to get to know your Supreme Court rulings relating to individual rights.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

For practical purposes, it's not what the constitution says, it's what the Supreme Court says it says.

But I have to ask if you're trying to teach a pig to whistle? Either side open minded? If not, just trying yelling the same thing, over and over, louder and louder. ;)
 
The Supreme Court has always maintained that the militia was composed of indviduals and their private ownership of firearms. In some areas the possession of firearms was mandatory.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. (JUSTICE McREYNOLDS, 1939) United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).


James Madison, in the form of the Federalist Paper #46 in defense of the creation of a standing national army:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. (Madison, 1788)


Here is a quote from Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper #28 to reinforce the point:

We should recollect that the extent of the military force must, at all events, be regulated by the resources of the country. For a long time to come, it will not be possible to maintain a large army; and as the means of doing this increase, the population and natural strength of the community will proportionably increase. When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning. (Hamilton, unknown)
 
Last edited:
it is also important to know in the context of the age this was written - "well-regulated militia" essentially meant -"the entire body of men between 18 and 45 who are not elected officials, who are well equipped with arms, powder and ammunition" +++++++++++++ well-regulated did not mean restricted or controlled... (loose translation)
 
I agree. The term "well regulated" in those days basically meant "well trained", it had nothing to do with being governed. The "militia" referred to by the founders in the constitution consists of every able bodied man who is a citizen. In our day the only valid change to those definitions, in my opinion, is to include women in the militia. The website mentioned above provides a lot of useful information on this subject.
 
Inform "them" that, while the constitution guarantees them things like the right to free speech, the right to peacefully assemble, the right to bear arms, and such... NOWHERE does it guarantee a right to "feel safe". Far too may people in this country mistakenly believe that they have this "right", and can therefore regulate the activity/freedom of others in order to preserve their "right".

If they're a free-speech advocate, explain to them that their right to free speech trumps another's self-proclaimed "right" to not be offended.... just as your right to keep and bear arms trumps their self-proclaimed "right" to feel safe.

Further, as others have pointed out, the Heller decision in June '08 determined that the 2nd amendment guaranteed an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms - outside the realm of a "militia". They can argue until they're blue in the face, but that's what the Supreme Court said, and as the Constitution gives them the power to interpret the laws, that's currently the law of the land. Then give them one of these: :neener:
 
What's a well reasoned argument to shut them down? Or at least make them understand that they are not making sense?
Click to expand...
The Militia argument has been completely shut down by Heller:
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
...
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
...
We therefore believe that the most likely reading of all four of these pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes.
...
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced...

in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:
“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, cur- tailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.​
Click to expand...
 
Private carriage that does not infringe the security rights of neighbors.

What's a well reasoned argument to shut them down?
Click to expand...

"My carrying a weapon in no way infringes on the security rights of my neighbors, since I have no desire to endanger them. In point of fact, it increases their security because I am prepared to intercede on their behalf if they are threatened with harm."
 
Remind him of ww2 thoughts by the famous general whats his name saying that the japanese said that attacking america would be a impossible task,because their would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.I for one think that the only reason that the great USA has never been invaded, is because that reason alone.
We as gun owners as civilians provides a great deterrant,especially now that so many troops are deployed elsewhere.Just my two cents worth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ru4real
  • Locked
Best 2nd Amendment Analogy and Pro Gun Argument ever written
Replies
24
Views
3K
Flechette
Flechette
B
  • Locked
2A
Replies
5
Views
428
fanchisimo
F
T
  • Locked
RKBA Redux
Replies
6
Views
388
tgzzzz
T
B
  • Locked
Symantics of the Second Amendment - Opinions?
Replies
16
Views
696
MP5
M
sarduy
  • Locked
Gun Owner take out Carjacker
Replies
15
Views
1K
Deltaboy1984
Deltaboy1984
Back
Top