Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/6/2005 6:00:49 AM EDT
This weeks discussion question in my online class is "Discuss the 2nd amendment"

I'm not sure how to attack this. My class is full of liberal sheep and I really want to make this good but professional as well. How would you start it?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:02:34 AM EDT
Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Ask anyone to argue with that and go to town.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:02:50 AM EDT
John Locke's "The Bias Against Guns" is a good resource
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:04:51 AM EDT
You will provide an update, right? I wanna know how this goes.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:05:36 AM EDT
tagged for outcome
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:11:46 AM EDT
I'm using your line w4klr.

Now how about the angle that our forefathers wanted the people to have arms to keep the government in line in case they ever got too much control and went ballistic. Wasn't there some kind of concern like that?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:16:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:17:22 AM EDT
Gunfacts.info
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:18:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 6:18:50 AM EDT by ASNixon]
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:18:41 AM EDT
Dianne Feinstein owns a revolver.



CRC
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:19:09 AM EDT
"Discuss the 2nd Amendment" is a pretty nebulous starting point.
If you're choosing what aspects of the 2nd to discuss, here are some oldies (around here), but goodies:

"The term 'militia', refered to in the amendment, does NOT refer to the National Guard".

"'Well-regulated' did not mean 'overly-burdoned with obscure and often conflicting rules' when the amendment was drafted".

"If the 2nd is a 'collective' right (as some suggest), why doesn't the term 'people' mean the same in the 2nd as it does in the other amendments (which are considered individual rights)"?

...if none of those are of interest, you could always post pics of you dressed in camo inside your ammo fort.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:20:16 AM EDT
Wanna know the outcome of this one . . . .
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:20:48 AM EDT
Love it. Thanks guys!
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:21:43 AM EDT
Here are the basic arguments against the second amendment that you will see. You should be well prepared for all of them:

1. The second amendment is not an individual right. The amendment refers to militias, which ONCE referred to all able bodied men, but now refer to the national guard.
2. The founding fathers had no idea that weapons would be developed that could effectively spray ammunition quickly. The second amendment was intended to protect your right to a musket. This question comes down to "what does 'arms' mean in the context of the second amendment"?
3. What does "shall not be infringed" mean? Is the government infringing by requiring you to register your arms? If the government allows you to have some types of rifles but not others, is it really infringing?

There are good arguments to counter all of these questions, and I'm sure someone less lazy than me will be along shortly to help you out.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:32:01 AM EDT
Here's what I have to start the conversation. What do you think? I havent posted yet. Waiting for tips from you:

The Second Amendment reads: 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. Most liberals argue that this is open to interpretation, but it reads plain enough for me. This amendment probaby is under attack more than any other. The left wing in this country would like nothing more than to take every gun off the street. Yet it's funny that those states and those cities that allow concealed carry have lower crime rates than those without. The police cannot be everywhere all the time and criminals prefer unarmed victims. Look at New Orleans and the situation that occured there. People were helpless while the thugs that took to the streets had their illegally obtained firearms. Our fore fathers saw this need even back then in history and knew every individual should have the right to protect themselves.

To touch on how this amendment affects me. I moved to the free state of Pennsylvania two years ago. A state that actually obeys the constitution and it's amendments, where unless you are a convicted criminal, you have the right to carry a concealed handgun for protection. I use to live in New Jersey, where the second amendment right is overlooked and ignored and only those politically connected can obtain a license to carry a firearm. While living in New Jersey I felt my federal rights were being oppressed by a corrupt state government and I was glad to leave and now live in a part of America that allows you to exercise your rights and live your life like our forefathers intended.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:33:38 AM EDT
Start with "it ain't about duck / deer hunting."
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:36:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
Gunfacts.info



That's a great link
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:38:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 6:41:18 AM EDT by garandman]

Originally Posted By Sandman67:
Here's what I have to start the conversation. What do you think? I havent posted yet. Waiting for tips from you:

The Second Amendment reads: 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. Most liberals argue that this is open to interpretation, but it reads plain enough for me. This amendment probaby is under attack more than any other. The left wing in this country would like nothing more than to take every gun off the street. Yet it's funny that those states and those cities that allow concealed carry have lower crime rates than those without. The police cannot be everywhere all the time and criminals prefer unarmed victims. Look at New Orleans and the situation that occured there. People were helpless while the thugs that took to the streets had their illegally obtained firearms. Our fore fathers saw this need even back then in history and knew every individual should have the right to protect themselves.

To touch on how this amendment affects me. I moved to the free state of Pennsylvania two years ago. A state that actually obeys the constitution and it's amendments, where unless you are a convicted criminal, you have the right to carry a concealed handgun for protection. I use to live in New Jersey, where the second amendment right is overlooked and ignored and only those politically connected can obtain a license to carry a firearm. While living in New Jersey I felt my federal rights were being oppressed by a corrupt state government and I was glad to leave and now live in a part of America that allows you to exercise your rights and live your life like our forefathers intended.



COlor coded, for your reading pleasure.

May make you look like a right wing guy who wants everybody (kids, crims) to have guns. Somewhat inflamatory rhetoric. Use of inflamtory rhetoric often gives people all they need to marginalize you and your more sound arguments. Avoid it. (well, other than here at Arfcom. Here its mandatory. )

What our forefathers saw was the need to give gov't tyrants reason to fear the citizenry. 2A is NOT primarily about self defense from looters.

There are no "federal rights" THese are "inalienable rights" that are merely recognized by the BoR as existing without any reference to gov't

On the whole, very good. Keep us updated.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:40:44 AM EDT
Gotcha Garandman -thanks. I'm making the changes now. I'll repost it when I'm done.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:42:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sandman67:
Gotcha Garandman -thanks. I'm making the changes now. I'll repost it when I'm done.



Yer doin "the Lord's work" my friend.

Godspeed.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:43:43 AM EDT
Don't forget citizens owned the cannons and mortars that were used to fight the Revolutionary War.

The colonial govt at the time did not have much in the way of money or arms.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:45:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Don't forget citizens owned the cannons and mortars that were used to fight the Revolutionary War.

The colonial govt at the time did not have much in the way of money or arms.




As well as the then present day battleships. (known as frigates)


Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:46:00 AM EDT
Made changes per Garandman. Whatcha think?

The Second Amendment reads: 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. Most liberals argue that this is open to interpretation, but it reads plain enough for me. This amendment probaby is under attack more than any other. There are people in this country that would like nothing more than to take guns out of the ordinary citizens hand. Yet it's funny that those states and those cities that allow concealed carry have lower crime rates than those without. The police cannot be everywhere all the time and criminals prefer unarmed victims. Look at New Orleans and the situation that occured there. People were helpless while the thugs that took to the streets had their illegally obtained firearms. Even our fore fathers saw a need back then in history to give government tyrants a reason to fear the citizenry.

To touch on how this amendment affects me. I moved to the free state of Pennsylvania two years ago. A state that actually obeys the constitution and it's amendments, where unless you are a convicted criminal, you have the right to carry a concealed handgun for protection. I use to live in New Jersey, where the second amendment right is overlooked and ignored and only those politically connected can obtain a license to carry a firearm. While living in New Jersey I felt my inalienable rights were being oppressed by a corrupt state government and I was glad to leave and now live in a part of America that allows you to exercise your rights and live your life like our forefathers intended.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:46:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 8:02:15 AM EDT by A_Free_Man]
Most liberals argue that this is open to interpretation, but it reads plain enough for me.

Yes it does read plainly. And judges who would read into it all sorts of restrictions are intellectually dishonest. They know what it says, and they rule otherwise. They disgrace the court.

Diagram the sentence..

You will find the subject is "the Right".

Whose right? "of the People".

What kind of right is it? "to keep and bear arms"

The complete subject is "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms".

It does not say that right is only for the "Militia". The initial clause gives a reason for the necessity of maintaining the right. It says that a Well Regulated Militia (which at that time mean, and still does, an armed populace) is necessary to keep us free. It does not restrict the right to that use only, nor doe sit restrict the right to the militia. It clearly say, so that any person can understand it, the right belongs to THE PEOPLE.

And the verb is "shall not be infringed."

It does not "give" this right to anyone. It says the People's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It does not limit WHO shall not infringe it. It is left open... so NO ONE an infringe that right. Not the federal government, not th state, not the city, not the KKK, no one.

Governments and courts try to narrowly define this right. They are wrong.

This right has one function no other right has... it can preserve this and all other rights... with force if necessary.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:47:11 AM EDT
Garandman,

That is true to.

So the RTKABA does not just apply to rifles and pistols.

CRC
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:48:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 6:51:02 AM EDT by pliftkl]

Originally Posted By Sandman67:
Here's what I have to start the conversation. What do you think? I havent posted yet. Waiting for tips from you:

The Second Amendment reads: 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. Most liberals argue that this is open to interpretation, but it reads plain enough for me. This amendment probaby is under attack more than any other. The left wing in this country would like nothing more than to take every gun off the street. Yet it's funny that those states and those cities that allow concealed carry have lower crime rates than those without. The police cannot be everywhere all the time and criminals prefer unarmed victims. Look at New Orleans and the situation that occured there. People were helpless while the thugs that took to the streets had their illegally obtained firearms. Our fore fathers saw this need even back then in history and knew every individual should have the right to protect themselves.

To touch on how this amendment affects me. I moved to the free state of Pennsylvania two years ago. A state that actually obeys the constitution and it's amendments, where unless you are a convicted criminal, you have the right to carry a concealed handgun for protection. I use to live in New Jersey, where the second amendment right is overlooked and ignored and only those politically connected can obtain a license to carry a firearm. While living in New Jersey I felt my federal rights were being oppressed by a corrupt state government and I was glad to leave and now live in a part of America that allows you to exercise your rights and live your life like our forefathers intended.



It depends what your objective is here. If your objective is merely to defend your own position, it's ok. If your objective is to convince anyone else that your position is right, you are taking the wrong approach. When you make references to "liberals" and "the left wing", you are generalizing badly, and since people will take these labels personally, they'll react in a negative way. I would also remove references to "free state" and "corrupt state government" and merely contrast the state gun laws in the context of the fact that you have a federal right to bear arms. You want to put across a rational argument that doesn't label or offend any of the people you are tying to convince.

ETA: I see you already fixed the liberal references. Looks better, but still consider removing the "free state" label and references to corruption in NJ. NJ may be corrupt, but you want to stay on track here.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:51:55 AM EDT
Oh Oh! This is lame explination..

"If you would be free, then you must fight!" Without the power to fight, then you are not free.

Also, and I'd like this corrected, wasn't one of the first gun laws in this country (this country under the current constitution) to bar slaves from owning firearms?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:54:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 6:56:07 AM EDT by u-baddog]

Originally Posted By Sandman67:
Made changes per Garandman. Whatcha think?

The Second Amendment reads: 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. Most liberals A small minority argue that this is open to interpretation, but it reads plain enough for me. This amendment probaby is under attack more than any other. There are people in this country that would like nothing more than to take guns out of the ordinary citizens hand. Yet it's funny that those states and those cities that allow concealed carry have lower crime rates than those without. The police cannot be everywhere all the time and criminals prefer unarmed victims. Look at New Orleans and the situation that occured there. People were helpless while the thugs that took to the streets had their illegally obtained firearms. Even our fore fathers saw a need back then in history to give government tyrants a reason to fear the citizenry.

To touch on how this amendment affects me. I moved to the free state of Pennsylvania two years ago. A state that actually obeys follows the constitution and it's amendments, where unless you are a convicted criminal, you have the right to carry a concealed handgun for protection. I use to live in New Jersey, where the second amendment right is overlooked and ignored and only those politically connected can obtain a license to carry a firearm. While living in New Jersey I felt my inalienable rights were being oppressed by a corrupt state government and I was glad to leave and now live in a part of America that allows you to exercise your rights and live your life like our forefathers intended.



My suggestions
Why use the term liberal ? They know who they are. They are are small group treat them as such.

Obey ? I dont obey well, I will willing follow if I agree with the idea's of the group.

I would use the red instead of the blue.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 6:55:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Garandman,

That is true to.

So the RTKABA does not just apply to rifles and pistols.

CRC



Actually this is somehing I've never quite understood. Would the RKBA extend to my being able to have a SAM? When I brought this up previously in this forum, someone made the assertion "a SAM isn't an arm, it's an ordinance, in much the same way that nuclear weapons are". But that's sort of an arbitrary definintion, right? I mean, most people (even on this board) agree that people shouldn't be able to own personal missile systems, but why not? What makes them ordinance and my rifle an arm? When we negotiated treaties with the Soviets, they weren't "Ordinance control treaties", they were "Arms control treaties". I'd love to get opinions on how we make the cut between arms and "other weapons" that are not covered by the 2nd amendment.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:03:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 7:04:08 AM EDT by Older_Crow]
Please read this to be prepared!
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:04:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:

So the RTKABA does not just apply to rifles and pistols.

CRC



Exactly.

And mentioning that fact is likely to make your average soccer mom stroke out.

Sometimes, its best to play that close to the vest. At least until we get GCA 34, 68 and 86 repealed.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:07:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By buckfever34:
John Locke's "The Bias Against Guns" is a good resource



John Lott. Locke was an enlightenment philosopher.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:08:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:
John Lott. Locke was an enlightenment philosopher.



all the same.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:13:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Older_Crow:
Please read this to be prepared!



Wow I like that!! I need to remember a few of those arguments for myself to use against the libs
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:14:28 AM EDT
Here's what I always use.
It's in the Bill of Rights.
End of discussion.

Make sure to stick to that - refuse to address crime rates, how your AR is really a target rifle, etc.
Don't pander to them. The RKBA is about self-defense - from street thugs, as well as gov't thugs, should America ever wind up there.

Also, a SAM is not protected by the RKBA.
It is ordinance - and this is not an arbitrary defenition, this is a military definition.
However, pretty much everything else you can think of is an "arm"
Machine guns (the real kind), Assault rifles(the real kind), sub machine guns, sawed off shotguns, etc.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:19:55 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 7:52:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Also, a SAM is not protected by the RKBA.
It is ordinance - and this is not an arbitrary defenition, this is a military definition.



But when I order ammo online, it comes in a box specifically labelled "ordinance". In general terms the military definition of ordinance would be anything that explodes, and that would include a rifle cartridge.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I'm looking for what exactly makes something an "arm" as opposed to ordinance. Is a howitzer or an arm (for that matter, maybe it is legal to own a howitzer? i've never checked!)?

Is ordinance basically "anything that explodes"?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:02:06 AM EDT
Here's what I posted, keep in mind this is just to get the discussion going. I'll post the replys if you guys are interested:

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment reads: 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. A small minority argue that this is open to interpretation, but it reads plain enough for me. This amendment probably is under attack more than any other. There are people in this country that would like nothing more than to take guns out of the ordinary citizens hand. Yet it's funny that those states and those cities that allow concealed carry have lower crime rates than those without. The police cannot be everywhere all the time and criminals prefer unarmed victims. Look at New Orleans and the situation that occurred there. People were helpless while the thugs that took to the streets had their illegally obtained firearms. Even our fore fathers saw a need back then in history to give government tyrants a reason to fear the citizenry.

To touch on how this amendment affects me. I moved to the free state of Pennsylvania two years ago. A state that actually follows the constitution and it's amendments, where unless you are a convicted criminal, you have the right to carry a concealed handgun for protection. I use to live in New Jersey, where the second amendment right is overlooked and ignored and only those politically connected can obtain a license to carry a firearm. While living in New Jersey I felt my inalienable rights were being oppressed by that state government and I was glad to leave and now live in a part of America that allows you to exercise your rights and live your life like our forefathers intended.

-Mike
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:16:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 8:40:52 AM EDT by FLGreg]
Most of those who will argue against you will base their arguments on what they heard from others misinterpreting the 2nd and simply parroting what they’ve heard. Use cold, hard facts and not emotions to make your point. Don’t make a right versus left argument or you risk people closing their minds as soon as you say the words – “Liberal’s think”.

ETA: I would leave NOLA out of it. Keep it an academic discussion. If you inject all of the reasons why we need the RKBA it could turn emotional for those who think guns are "icky".

1. The number one misconception is that it is collective right or a states’ right. That the militia refers to the NG and not to private ownership of guns. We area all members of the militia whether they like it not.

To counter that argument point them to federal law. 10 USC 311 clearly defines militia:



§ 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.



2. Give them a little history lesson as to why the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution. The Constitution clearly spells out how the federal government is set up and supposed to run (powers of the president, congress, separation of powers, blah, blah, blah). But one of the deficiencies of the document was that it didn’t spell out what the rights of the people were, hence the ratification of the first ten amendments to the constitution that we call the Bill of Rights.

3. If they get all caught up in the semantics of the 2nd Amendment then diagram the sentence like A_Free_Man suggests. However, one correction needs to be made to his analysis:

I believe 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' is a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall').

Start with the root of the sentence - the right shall not be infringed – and work out from there. Who’s Right? The people. To What? To bear arms, ect. ect. You get the picture.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:26:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 8:33:16 AM EDT by Greenhorn]
I think you should definitely break down the wording of the 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."

Many people, including big 2nd supporters, get confused by the usage of commas. I was too until I decided to spend a few minutes looking at it. It didn't take long before I came to this conclusion:

There are two clauses in this amendment, both of which are tied together with the conclusion "shall not be infringed." What shall not be infringed? 1) A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state and 2) the right of the People to keep and bear arms. The last comma is EXTREMELY important. It wasn't put there randomly.

Another way of writing it would be the following:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed, and neither shall the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If it meant that there shall be a militia (national guard) as the libs say, it would have been written without the comma, and would translate thus (assuming you ignored the fact that "people" refers to "people", not guard members):

Because 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.

That is how the libs see it. They see the two clauses as being connected.

At least that's how I understand it.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:29:43 AM EDT
But alwasy remember, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is NOT given by the Bill of Rights.

We already have that right! The Bill of Rights recognizes that right, and says that others may not infringe that right.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 8:36:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
Also, a SAM is not protected by the RKBA.
It is ordinance - and this is not an arbitrary defenition, this is a military definition.



Yet private citizens DID own ordinance back in the day. Cannon and fighting ships.

To say that 2A does not authorize ordinance is perhaps technically correct, but is not supported by the reality of the day.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:20:19 AM EDT
You can debunk the claim that civiians shouldn't own weapons superior to the army too.

The rifles owned by the colonists had longer range than the smooth bore muskets of the British army. Colonists with rifles killed British officers and sergeants at 2-3 hundred yards distance. British losses got so bad that orders were issued to execute Colonists caputured with a rifle in their possesion.
Top Top