Need help in an argument

[vito]

You are probably wasting breath and time trying to "convince" an anti-gunner. Their anti-gun "feelings" and beliefs are primarily emotional and driven from fear. Despite state after state enacting concealed carry laws, with statistically significant decreases in serious crimes, the warning of carnage in the streets is raised every time a state without concealed carry considers it or a state with strict restrictions on concealed carry seeks to liberalize the laws. And why does this argument resonate with some folks? Because they have a visceral fear of, and dislike of guns, so anything that says more guns are good must be wrong to them. Most of my relatives live in NY and NONE of them even own a single gun. They think of me as the crazy uncle who has guns. They cannot comprehend that I keep a gun for home defense. They seem to fervently believe that either they will never be the victim of a home invasion, or that if invaded, the only strategy is to call 911 and cower to the invaders, or they rely on a baseball bat for family safety. This last method is especially revealing since it shows that at some level they understand that they need to protect themselves, but can't go as far as thinking about a gun as the tool to achieve the goal. I gave up years ago to try to convince any of them.

 

[Just One Shot]

What so many people forget is, during the founding fathers day the militia was made up of common people. When we went to war with the British it was a bunch of civilians such as farmers, store owners, ministers and so on. After the war most went back to their families and their every day lives. They were not professional soldiers such as we have today. In that context we can see that the militia IS the people! Just my personal opinion, you may disagree if you wish.

 

[Ronsch]

There is a comma after the word "militia" in the 2nd Amendment, therefore setting it as a separate.

"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."

I read that as the well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Long and short, both the "well regulated militia" is a right, as is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[Larry E]

Despite what many in this country currently feel or believe there is NO right not to be offended, scared, upset, or displeased. Everyone should have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all others are bogus.

The Second Amendment was written just in case nut jobs like various politicians and other whiny, crybabies should try to restrict gun ownership or possession.

When 2A was written it was assumed that all able bodied men would supply their own arms and ammunition (ball and powder) for militia drills. This has not been done since the time of the Civil War, but that was the original purpose of the "well regulated militia" phrase. The RIGHT has nothing to do with a militia, and regulation then meant organization not what the current dimwits would have us believe.

 

[Kenneth]

Before I give you my answer; some recommended reading.

Firing Back by Clayton E. Cramer, is an excellent start. Its short, about 200 pages, and easy to understand. The book was written in 1994 so the statistical data is outdated. However, current data is easy enough to look up, and nothing has really changed very much anyway. Cramer touches on rhetorical strategies, deciphering crime statistics and how statistics are misused, the constitutional right, the basic human right of self defense and the typical anti rights arguments. Next

For The Defense Of Themselves And The State; The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms also by Clayton E. Cramer. I'm reading this one now. It’s real meat and potatoes stuff but as easy to understand as Firing Back. He starts out with Definitions and then European Origins (Yup, the RTKBA has European origins donchyaknow). And then on to the legislative history, the judicial interpretation and other specific issues.

Now, to answer the question. To say that the right exists only in the context of a "well regulated militia" is just flat out wrong. The first clause can in no way be construed as a limit to the second clause. A well regulated militia is A reason to keep and bear arms but not the only reason.
The second clause contains the explicit prohibition against infringement. The term "the people" is defined by it's usage elsewhere in the constitution as a body of individuals. Where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it is NOT GRANTING a right we otherwise would not have, it is enforcing a right that is presumed by the words, "shall not be infringed", to preexist the constitution. In US v Cruikshank (1876) the court found: "The right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
As for "Private carriage that does not infringe the security rights of neighbors" as a rule of thumb, if someone claims to have a certain right that would violate another right then it isn't a right. Mere possession of arms at home or in public cannot in any way infringe anyone's security rights. What is meant by "security rights of neighbors" is to be reasonably secure from criminal attacks, or foreign invasion. The only way a person can violate anothers right to be secure in his/her person is by committing a crime against that person.

 

[Axel Larson]

If one has a right to life than it follows that one has a right to self defense, and if one has the right to self defense than it follows that one has the right to the most effective means of self defense. To take away the means is to take away the right.

Unfortunately as many have said here logic is lost on may of these people. :banghead:
Good luck with your argument!

 

[Beemerguy53]

In any argument over the "true meaning" of the Second Amendment, I suggest people consider it in the context of its inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) were written to limit the power of the government, and enshrine in writing specific rights retained by the people. In that context, it is illogical to think the Founders intended the Second Amendment to define or protect the right of the government to have a militia, especially given that the right to maintain a Navy and raise an Army is already written into the Constitution. I also try to point out to people that, having just waged a successful revolution against the world's premier superpower of that era, it is highly unlikely the Founders wanted to protect the government's right to arm itself.

Secondly, wherever the phrase "the people" is used in the Bill of Rights, it is clearly intended to mean individual citizens, not the collective group, and certainly not the government.

It is usually very difficult to get anti-gun people to concede that the Constitution is not on their side...good luck to you!

 

[Kenneth]

I wrote the following as a rebuttal to an editorial in the Sunday paper entitled Arizona attack makes a joke of gun control by Roger Lowenstein. http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/viewpoints/article313961.ece My reply makes more sense if you read lowenstein's piece first, however it does provide good reponses that you can use even without reading lowenstein's editorial. I used part of my previous post on this thread and added to it. I hope you find it helpfull.

Roger couldn’t be more wrong if he tried. To say that the right exists only in the context of a "well regulated militia" is just flat out wrong. The first clause can in no way be construed as a limit to the second clause.
The second clause contains the explicit prohibition against infringement. The term "the people" is defined by its usage elsewhere in the constitution as the entire body of individuals who are US citizens. Where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it is NOT GRANTING a right we otherwise would not have; it is enforcing a right that is presumed by the words, "shall not be infringed", to pre exist the constitution. In US v Cruikshank (1876) the court found: "The right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
The constitution does not establish our right to keep and bear arms just for a select few “members” of a militia. It establishes the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” so that they could form a militia if need be.
The first clause cannot be construed to limit the purpose of our right to keep and bear arms to the formation of a militia. Since the use of the term “shall not be infringed” presumes that our right to keep and bear arms pre exists the constitution, our right to keep and bear arms must also pre exist the militia.
There is no distinction between “independent citizens” and members of a militia since it is “independent citizens” that form the militia. Since it was citizens who formed the militia, it was expected of them to bring a military grade firearm, as well as a certain amount of gunpowder, ball, and flints. In many places possession of a military grade firearm was required by law. Exceptions were made for those who could not afford to purchase an additional firearm, and for those who would deprive those left behind of arms for personal protection.
Since one of the reasons for enforcing our right to keep and bear arms is so that we can assemble together for the defense of ourselves and the state, the constitution also must enforce our right to possess arms suitable for militia purposes, like civilian versions of military grade firearms.
The constitution’s “well-regulated” militia was viewed as protection from foreign invasion, insurrection, and government tyranny. Not only did the framers envision private ownership of firearms, which was already commonplace, they expected that an armed citizenry would be the greatest defense against despots and tyrants who they also expected to inhabit our government. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
Mr. Lowenstein would do better by studying actual U.S. history rather than wasting his mind on press releases from anti-rights zealots.

 

[Leverb66]

To the OP...how'd it go?

 

[henschman]

Well, you can base your argument on at least 2 things... one would be the moral argument (whether one has a moral right to own/buy/carry a gun), and then there is the Constitutional argument (the Constitution protects my right to own/buy/carry a gun). The Constitution was written to protect moral rights that the founders believed all people possessed prior to the existence of the Constitution or to any government... the Constitution was drafted principly to protect all those rights, and does not purport to "give" rights to anybody. I always like to straighten people out on that issue first off.

When it comes to the legal argument, lots of folks have said it... the cases Heller and McDonald are the latest jurisprudence in this area.

I find the moral argument to be the stronger one, and it is always the one I focus on. I believe that even if the Constitution DID allow for gun control, it would be worthy of resisting, because it would be a tyrannical law that violates the rightful liberty of individuals.

When it comes to the moral argument, I would start by asking him whether he believes in the general idea that people have the right to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting somebody else. I would also ask whether he believes in the proposition that nobody has a right to use force or violence unless it is in defense against aggression against someone. If he agrees, then you are off to a good start, because he accepts your basic premises (which I think most people do). Next, you have to explain how his beliefs are logically inconsistent with those premises. You need to ask him how simply owning/buying/carrying a gun threatens anybody. If it does not, it means that nobody is justified in using force or violence against someone just because he wants to own/buy/carry a gun. And what is government, if not organized force and violence? Anybody who doubts this can try not paying his taxes and see how long it takes before men with guns come looking for him.

You might also remind him of the prime rationale for gun ownership as contemplated by the founding fathes, which is connected to our right to revolution, as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. You might ask him who or what has been responsible for the most murders throughout human history. The answer is over-powerful government. You might remind him that 262 Million people were killed by democide (death by government) during the 20th Century. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM And those are just the ones who died... every one of those deaths reflect a family that was torn apart. For every death, I imagine there were many more lives absolutely destroyed by government.

So you might ask him, since he presumably only believes in restricting weapons access to individuals and not to government, what is to keep a government from doing this type of thing against a helpless and unarmed population? In essence, who watches the watchmen? Well, you are trusting in the system and in the general goodness of human beings. History has shown us two things... one, that there is no political system that is well enough designed that it can keep power from consolidating into the hands of a tyrant if the people do not remain vigilant; and two, that the brutality that human beings are capable of committing against one another, given the proper circumstances, knows no bounds.

Democracy will not save us... tyranny can be just as easily instituted by a dictator as it can be by a majority vote.

So in the end, the right to bear arms is as a last resort against tyranny. The nice thing is that we don't even have to fight for it to work... it serves as a deterrent. Those in government would be hesitant to even think about instituting a law if they knew a large amount of people would consider it a threat to their liberty sufficient to justify taking up arms.

Though it has never been proven that gun control saves lives, I imagine it would be worth losing a few lives to the relatively insignificant threat of crime in order to ensure that we still have this strong deterrent against the REALLY bad criminals.

 

[sig220mw]

To be regulated is to be up to a certain standard. Well trained as someone else stated earlier. Look up regulation and it means just that. Standards or requirements are necessary. The militia was and is the people. The founders didn't want a military at first because they had been under military rule under the British army. The army was loyal to England only. Being loyal to England only it treated the colonists as second class citizens.

The "militia only" argument is a common argument antis that don't know what they are talking about use. They are repeating what they heard another like minded person say. There was a talk show host in Ft. Worth back in the late 1980's that claimed that if concealed carry was made lawful, people would get shot just for knocking on some one's door. It was a stupid argument but people heard and started using it. When questioned about it and asked for an explanation they stepped all over themselves trying to think of something that made sense to say in response.

The original militia was regulated in that they already owned their own rifles and ammunition could use them without further instruction. They just needed to be called up.

 

[RandomPerson]

To pro-gun people, the 2nd amendment is a guarantee of gun ownership. To anti-gun people, the opposite is true. Under the McDonald decision, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (often inaccurately cited as the due process clause) was cited as the reason gun ownership was allowed ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" meaning you couldn't be deprived of your gun as PROPERTY).

You can argue with whoever you want on what any amendment means, but ultimately the real interpretation is up to the supreme court as stated by Marbury v. Madison (1803) whereby the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter in disputes of constitutional law.

 

[LtShortcut]

To the OP...how'd it go?

Exactly how we all thought it would.

He refused to listen or discuss anything I had to say and instead spoke over me.

I told him he was unbalanced and ceased the discourse.

Thanks for the help though.

 

[TexasBill]

Should the discussion come up again, simply tell your "adversary" to go find an English teacher that understands grammar well enough to tell him about dependent clauses.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a dependent clause. It cannot stand alone as a sentence or be valid without "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One the other hand, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is a perfectly good, and complete, sentence that can stand on its own.

Since the framers of the Constitution were reasonably well-educated men with a working command of English grammar, it is obvious their intent was to ensure that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The main verb in the sentence is "infringed" and the section of the sentence upon which it acts is "the right of the people to bear arms."

Top it off by encouraging your opponent to go over the entire Constitution, including all the amendments, an point out to you the part where it discusses "security rights" other than those in the Fourth Amendment, which reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Nothing about neighbors with firearms (unless, perhaps, if you are using it while unreasonably violating their persons, houses, papers and effects).

Then smile and politely ask him to quit wasting the time of people who obviously know more than he does.

 

[oerllikon]

You cant win arguments with people that are never wrong.

I would try to drop it personally, but I think the other person is splitting hairs on what the 2A directly means.

 

[edporch]

In the late 1700's, the term "well regulated" meant "in good working order".

So what they were saying was, so a free state can create a militia in good working order, they must be properly equipped from a base of citizenry who's right to keep and bear arms hasn't been restricted.

Remember, in those days a militia member was expected to provide THEIR OWN weapon, with so many shots.

 

[scythefwd]

As current law stands right now, selective service aka the draft, is extremely limted. You are no longer draftable after the age of 26. It was one of the things I though about and looked up when I was getting ready to ETS. btw... they draft younger to older, so the closer you are to 26, the less likely your lot is to be drawn. I made sure I couldn't be brought back in under draft, inactive reserves, or ROAD status.

from the sss.gov website...
Need a Status Information Letter or NOT?
Printer Friendly Version


Request for Status Information Letter

There may be a time when a man declares that he is not registered with the Selective Service System and is applying for any of the following benefits or programs linked to the registration requirement:

federal student loans and grant programs
federal job training under the Workforce Investment Act
federal jobs or security clearance as a contractor
U.S. citizenship
He may ask that the agency granting the benefit or financial aid officer processing his loan not to hold up the approval process pending a status information letter from the Selective Service System because there are certain conditions that do not require a man to have a status information letter from Selective Service.



No status information letters are required from the Selective Service System for :

Note to financial aid officers: If the man falls within one of the following categories, a Status Information Letter from Selective Service is NOT required if he can provide a copy of supporting documentation proving his case to your satisfaction. For more information, please consult the latest Student Financial Aid Handbook, Volume 1, Chapter 5, Page 1-61. To refer to the handbook, please click here.

Non-U.S. male who came into this country for the first time after his 26th birthday

Date of entry stamp in his passport, I-94 with date of entry stamp on it, or a letter from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) indicating the date the man entered the United States. If the men entered the U.S. illegally after his 26th birthday, he must provide proof that he was not living in the U.S. from age 18 through 25. Resident Alien Card (Green Card) is not valid as proof of the date of entry to the United States.



Non-U.S. male on a valid non-immigrant visa

For example, if the man entered the United States as an F-1 student visa and remained in that status until his 26th birthday, he would need to provide documentation indicating that he was admitted on an F-1 visa and attended school full-time as required. Acceptable documentation for this situation include a copy of his I-20 form or a letter from the school he attended indicating his full-time attendance as a non-immigrant alien. The same thing applies for all non-immigrant statuses.



A male born prior to 1960

Official government issued document showing date of birth such as state ID card, driver’s license, passport, birth certificate.



A veteran
DD-214 or current fulltime active duty orders, military ID card.


Who Must Register

Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. It's important to know that even though he is registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military. In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.

Men 18 through 25 years old may still register with Selective Service up until their 26th birthday. To determine who must register with Selective Service, check here

http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm

A chart of who must register is also available.

There are various ways to register: http://www.sss.gov/FSregist.htm

 

[ObsidianOne]

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.

General Isoroku Yamamoto.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

 

[J-Bar]

I think the best thing to do is keep buying guns and let him know you are adding to your collection. Maybe he will move.

 

[Magoo]

Penn and Teller's way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Penn & Teller

Ah, yes.

I'd forgotten that one.

Had an acquaintance "change sides" after viewing that.

Won't work for everyone, but there are some people who take their material as gospel. Go figure.

 

[MikeNice]

‘‘I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.’’ George Mason (one of the two "Fathers Of The Bill Of Rights.")

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country,
the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense."

Jon Adams A DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, at 475, (Philadelphia 1788)

The guys that were there to help write and work out the wording of the constitution said that everybody is part of the militia and that every citizen had the right to a gun for self defence. That should be enough to satisfy anyone being intellectually honest.

Samuel Adams did stipulate peaceable citizens. So, basically anybody that isn't a violent criminal is supposed to have the right to keep and bear arms.

If that doesn't win the argument you probably won't win.

ETA: Sorry to hear it went so poorly. I've been spending time in other places lately fighting it out with the anti-gun crowd. I have had two out of maybe two dozen say that they still didn't want to own a gun, but they were more open to others owning them. These days I take that as a home run.

Keep Gunfacts.info in your favorites along with the FBI's Unified Criminal Report Data tool and CDC information. With those tools in your kit you can branch out to cover nearly any argument.

 

[crzyjarmans]

IMO, say yes a well regulated militia, but i goes on to say and the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bar arms, and can not be infrindged, be sure they understand THE PEOPLE part