Recently some hippie wrote in facebook group for the NRA arguing that the 2nd didnt apply to the people. The argument went like this
Libtard writes: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to kep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In other words, the second amendment only protects the right to arms under the condition that the arms are necessary for the preservation of a militia. It is not a blanket statement for guns in general.
The constitution already provided for the existence and arming of a millitia in Article I, section 8 of the constitution. If the framers intended the 2nd to apply to the right of a state to maintain a millitia they would have used the term "state" instead of "people". As people concerned with indivudual liberty, why would have the founders have put an amendment in the bill of rights to protect the rights of the government!? That does not follow any logic.
If you read any of the comments on an armed populace by the founders they are pretty clear on what they intended. "Well-regulated" according to Madison simply meant being proficient in millitary tactics and training. In addition, the DOJ recently ruled in 2004 that the 2nd amendmend does indeed guaruntee and individual right.
Libtard writes back,
Even if the 2nd Amendment were intended to apply to the people rather than a militia, it wouldn't make a difference. Let me outline the logical flow of the argument the 2nd Amendment uses to justify itself.
1) A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
3) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
As you can see, I skipped from 1 to 3, because the argument lacks a crucial premise without which it is fallacious:
2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary for a well-regulated militia.
This premise was assumed, since the Constitution was written in the days when, by and large, militiamen used their own firearms. This is no longer the case, and thus the second premise is no longer valid, which in turn makes the entire justification provided by the framers invalid. The argument begs the question (in the philosophical sense, not the colloquial.)
And of course, we can't neglect the fact that if the Amendment weren't ABOUT militia, then it wouldn't explicitly SAY that it is. Claiming otherwise is nothing but putting words in the framers' mouths.
Obiously this is a classic exaple of a college liberal who has become so "intelectual" that he cant wrap his head around any facts.
I really want to shut is idiot up for good, whats a good response?
Have you tried kicking him in the nuts? That usually works on the libs I encounter.
Why are you even trying? These people are beyond help.
Real answer: His argument is that firearms are supplied to the militia now. Which militia is he referring to? The standing Army? I don't think so. Most likely the National Guard. The NG is in no way a militia, and it is just that simple. They are fighting in Iraq under orders of the President, which is clearly makes them a part of the standing armed force and not a militia in any sense of the word.
It's better if they're unarmed, anyway....
Point out that the ammendment has TWO CLAUSES that are completely seperate!
Clause 1: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
Clause 2: The right of the people to keep and bear arms,
Both of these clauses: Shall not be infringed.
Ask him what the comma is for after "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." It's there for a reason. If the ammendment meant the following:
"Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
It would have been written thus:
"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."
But it is NOT written like that. There is a very important comma there:
"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."
"What the Second Amendment protects is an individual right to bear military weapons, not for hunting, not for target shooting, not for repelling foreign invaders, but for the purpose of preventing oppression of the people by their own government. The historical, textual, structural, doctrinal, prudential, judicial, and legislative evidence is devastating. Any intelligent person who wishes to study the matter seriously should probably begin with S. Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637. Professor Levinson (University of Texas) is a devout liberal who set out to prove once and for all that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right (etc., ad nauseam). To his great embarrassment (hence the title), he found overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He had the academic integrity to admit it, for which he deserves great admiration. He does not like gun ownership, any more than some people like flag-burning or organized religion, but he recognizes that the individual right exists, and is integral to our constitutional protections, whether one likes it or not."
ask him if there is a difference in the "people" in the 1st A, from the "people" in the second. The bill of rights refers to all law abiding citizens of the US..hence the reference to the "people".
The simplest answer is the best.
NONE of the articles in the Bill of Rights are addressed to STATES. They described rights of the individual. To single out the 2nd Amndment as describing a "right" of the state is illogical, when every other article speaks to individual citizens.
Since the first clause of the 2nd Amendment is a supporting clause, the core right being described in the second clause is an individual right, and exists regardless of whether the state chooses to arm a militia.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
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 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
I'll bet he thinks that Amendments 1 and 4 apply.
I would love to...
to bad its illegal
The arguments you're talking about using just won't make a difference to this individual. You can supply all the stats and facts you want, but they'll just ignore them.
The only way to possibly approach it is to start asking questions of them, and then make them back up the answers with factual information. They will start off with a bunch of bogus statistics that they feel proves their point, but if you keep at it, and keep breaking down each argument to the basic points, eventually they run out of bogus info to provide and get left with nothing. Only at that point is it possible to get them to realize the errors of their thinking (and it's a big MAYBE at that).
Fixed it for ya.
Tell the little Nazi to go back to his party of the thirty's back in Germany.(NAZI)
Hitler would love to have a new little girlfriend.
He is trying to argue that the militia is obsolete and therefore the RBKA is null and void. Here is where he gets his argument:
Quote: "The militia mythology seems to have developed as a direct response to a line of Second Amendment argument in the past few decades. The full text 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.
The debate rages over the meaning of those phrases. On one side, "What part of "shall not be infringed" didn't you understand?", on the other, the "collective interpretation", which basically states that the right is only that of the States to keep the mentioned militia. Thus, if the right only refers to the people in an now-obsolete militia context, it becomes very much a guarantee inoperative in modern times.
Given this dispute, the driving force of militia mythology should be clearer. It's a rhetorical way of completely defeating the "collective interpretation", by saying that even if the context is restricted to the militia, that's practically everybody, everywhere, all the time, so that restriction is the aspect which is virtually inoperative. "
ETA: If you are going to argue with him, you need to read the whole link above.
But there are active state sanctioned citizen's militia in the country thereby invalidating his argument (see Virginia Militia).
ETA: You could also argue that just because congress and the president are not doing their job keeping the militia well regulated, does not mean the the milita doesn't exist. You can also point to the DCM as a poorly funded program to keep the milita "well regulated".
damn,that was going to be my suggestion as well.
You can't reason a person out of a position that they didnt' reason themselves into.
If the National Guard embodies the true meaning & intent of the "militia" reference, then said NG would've been created upon ratification of the Constitution in 1791. NG didn't come in existence until 1903 - 112 years later. I doubt the framers were peering into a crystal ball when they crafted the phrases "well-regulated" & "militia" into the amendment. He may not like the language or its context, but it says what it says. The fact that the necessity of this right ("the people" bearing arms in defiance of gov't oppression) would rarely ever need to be exercised doesn't diminish its importance or value as part of the Bill of Rights.
If he doesn't like it, let him call for a constitutional convention & attempt to re-write it all to his vision. The Constitution does provide for a convention. Of course, it also means the 1st Amendment will also be up for grabs, along w/ everything else therein (There's good reason why those old dead white guys made it intentionally "painful" to change the Supreme Law of the Land).
The douche bag is arguing that because we have a NG, the militia is obsolete. Therefore, the RBKA is invalidated. See link above.
One of the central flaws of the libtard's argument is that he is treating something which was written as a right of the people to be a power of the government.
Think of it this way. Each Amendment found in the Bill of Rights was meant to be a restriction on federal power. Historically, they were included because the Anti-Federalists were wary of the power given to the federal government by the new Constitution as oppossed to the prior Articles of Confederation. Your liberal friend, however, is interpreting the militia clause not as a restriction on federal power, but rather as a grant of power. In other words, he thinks that the Second Amendment was included because the federal government didn't have a standing army and therefore needed militia troops.
If that were the case, why would the 2nd Amendment be part of a series of Amendment's dealing with individual rights? The Militia's relationship to the federal government is dealt with in, among other areas, Article II, which makes the President commander in chief of all militia forces called to federal service. Why does your liberal friend think that the 2nd Amendment was phrased as a right? Did he think that the federal government was going to disarm itself in disarming the militia? Such an interpretation is, of course, absurd. Moreover, is would be completely unnecessary for the government to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a militia since the prior articles already granted it sufficient powers to call and train a militia. For instance, on of the first acts of Congress was to pass the militia act of 1792, which required every able bodied male to purchase and maintain their own rifle or musket, along with a full military kit. Why would the founders have passed an Amendment to do what they already had the power to do with a simple act of Congress?
Rather, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment can be clearly seen in the writings of the founders who worried not about being without means to defend the federal government, but were worried about the new powers granted to the federal government, and in particular of standing armies and select militias. The 2nd Amendment was meant to be a check on federal power. Therefore, the creation of a Regular Army and National Guard, along with the FBI, DEA, ATF, and every other alphabet soup agency don't make the 2nd Amendment less necessary, they make it more necessary. While there has been no large-scale use of these institutions to deprive the citizenry of their rights, there can be no doubt that the power of the federal government today is much greater than in 1790, and that if a tyrant should gain control of our current government, he would be much more difficult to dislodge than in 1790.
But the 2nd Amendment was more than just a reset button, it was meant to preserve to the people a right which Englishman had always enjoyed - at least since Alfred the Great was fighting the Vikings - but was often infringed by the nobles in order to preserve their own hunting grounds, or because they feared new weaponry (i.e. the crossbow). See this Harvard Law Journal on the Topic. www.guncite.com/journals/hardcit.html. The founders very much believed that the 2nd Amendment covered self-defense as well as defense of the state, as several contemporary state Constitutions recognized explicitly. In short, the 2nd Amendment was not written so that the federal government would have a ready supply of troops, but rather to prevent the federal government from engaging in the kind of infringement to an Englishman's natural right to bear arms that had been ongoing under the British system.
To interpret an Amendment explicitly limiting the power of the federal government as only existing "because they didn't have a standing army" is, quite simply, absurd.
Unless you enjoy the sport of it, say nothing to him.
Any benefit derived from talking to liberals MUST be on your side, cuz they they refuse to experience any benefit whatsoever.
Just email him this to let him know you are on to him..........
The Complete Guide To Libtard Debate Tactics
If you are a Libtard, certainly you will find that you frequently engage in discussions where you are quickly proven wrong by quick-witted conservatives using actual facts to support their arguments.
Here's a quick reference list of possible rebuttal comments/tactics to divert attention away from your pathetic ineptitude. Pick the comment/tactic which seems most appropriate. They can be used in combination with one-another (for those w/ advanced Libtardism only).
Warning: The below tactics will only be convincing to people that have an equal or lower IQ than you (other Libtards).
1. Claim that you or your fellow Lib-morons debunked said fact a long time ago.
2. Claim proposed "facts" are from a partisan source or question the credibility of the source. If the source has a funny name, make fun of the source name.
3. Divert discussion by misrepresenting or grossly exaggerating what your opponent said, and/or respond with one or several Ad Hominem/Straw-man Attacks.
4. Misrepresent your supporting facts to support your Libtard fallacy.
5. Redefine the English language to accommodate your Libtard fallacy.
6. Memorize this list and use it. It will make you sound more intelligent to your brainless Libtard friends:
- Let me put it this way
- In terms of
- Per se
- As it were
- So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.,", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not."
7. Just outright lie to support your position (aka Hissy-Fit). Make any claim you like and it will be true (in your mind at least).
8. Ignore the context of the discussion or facts. Pick and choose the sound-bites to support your Libtard Fallacy.
9. After you've been beaten like there is no tomorrow, proclaim "Ownage" over your opponent. Be careful with this technique. You will look like an imbecile to all but the most inept of your Libtard friends.
10. Make absurd, frivolous or irrelevant claims to divert attention away from your utter incompetence. Don't dare to support them. Make other people prove them wrong
11. Disregard known statistics or facts. They mean nothing because YOU or SOMEONE YOU KNOW/KNOW-OF had a different experience.
12. To support your delusional Libtardism, do not answer any question that will obviously prove you wrong (use any of the "general" tactics to divert).
13. If absolutely, irrevocably proven wrong on some fundamental point, claim that said point was misstated and you didn’t mean that at all. Tell them they have a "comprehension problem" and/or redefine the English language to support your claim (see number 5).
14. Force your opponent to document their claims: Even if PeteE50M5 states outright that he likes tomato sauce on his pasta, you should demand documentation. If the New York Times hasn't written an article on PeteE50M5's pasta preferences, then PeteE50M5 is obviously lying.
15. Tell everyone how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them? State that you're a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks of America. Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school. "I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word 'premeiotic'.
16. Create an absurd/flawed analogy to prove your point. Example: Saddam tortured people and US soldiers tortured people, therefore the US is just as bad as Saddam.
17. When all else fails, call your opponent a "racist", or imply he is a racist. As a last resort, compare him to a Nazi or Hitler.
18. If you forget the other rules, remember this one. Almost daily during your wonderful career as a libtarded moron, you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, and make you look generally like a sub-80 IQ bozo. At this point, there's only one thing to do: For the next several days, whine in EVERY post about how the person insulted you.
Drop these bombs during ANY discussion that is positive for Conservatives. They are sure to divert attention away from reality and rally your Libtard friends.
19. Claim Bush lied about why we went to war with Iraq. Bring up WMD's, fighting "Daddy's war" etc....
20. Always jump to conclusions and blame the US Military and Bush for anything bad that happens.
21. Claim we should have never gone to war in the first place. Accuse conservatives of being "war mongers".
22. Claim Republicans are over-spending. Refer to Clinton era balanced budget (don't mention dot.com boom as being the reason. Give Clinton and Dems all the credit).
23. Claim Dems were tricked into voting for war.
24. Claim Bush is incompetent because Bin Laden hasn't been captured.
25. Claim Iraq War is a "quagmire". Mention US war deaths to support your argument.
26. Claim the US is torturing detainees. Blame it on the "Bush/Rummy Torture Memo".
27. Claim that we're supposed to be the moral leaders.
28. Ask "Where is our cheap oil?"
29. Ask "Why hasn't _______(insert conservative name) joined up to fight in Iraq?" (Claim he's a "chickenhawk" and unqualified to comment and support the war because he hasn't served)
30. Use any opportunity you can to make a Republican look bad. Lying, distorting facts, quoting out of context is perfectly acceptable.
Tip: Wearing elevator shoes during your message-board exchange may boost your fragile ego and help relieve your Napoleon Complex to a certain degree, helping you sound less pathetic.
Find the subject.
Find the verb.
Anybody remember how to diagram a sentence?
The subject is "Right".
Whose right? "of the People"
What right? "to keep and bear arms"
What about that right? "shall not be infringed."
The preceding clause is the Why of the sentence. Why does that right belong to the People?
Because "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,".
This means what we have always said it means. The PEOPLE should remain armed, that right should not be infringed, so that they can form a militia and remain free. No government gone crazy can take the freedom of armed citizens.
One merely has to read the writings of the people at that time.
Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.
..."False is the idea of utility... that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except the destruction of liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson"
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)
Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops" (Noah Webster, 1787)
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)
William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (Nov. 18, 1783)
Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
I don't see any of these people, who were present in those days, saying that only the "militia" should be armed.
But there's more!
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
James Madison: "A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.
Joseph Story: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." (Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.)
President James Madison: "...to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;... to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics--that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;..." President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.
Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
So yes, it was clearly meant by our Forefathers that we be armed, and well armed, against tyrrany from government, that should government overstep its bounds the people may resist, fight them off, overthrow them if necessary. That was the clear intention of the writers of the Constitution of the United States that the citizens be well armed, practiced in military tactics, and able to keep govenment in line.
So, Mr. Libtard can read English, can't he?
I love it when these dorks cannot get around the words so they just change the meaning of the words to suit their needs.
Also, this is part of the bill of rights. it is not a piece of the constitution that is granting shit. The BOR does not grant anyfuckingthing, it sets out ground rules explaining that each and every person is born with certain inalienable rights and the BOR is not meant to grant those rights, but to LIMIT what the .gov can do.
tell him to read the preamble to the BOR.
Also tell him to put a big fat sign out in his front yard saying he is anti-gun and will refuse to defend himself if attacked because it would violate the rights of the attackers.
I saw the link. As I already stated: "He may not like the language or its context, but it says what it says." The language is still there. His "opinion" about its relevance is itself an irrelevance. The right is recognized (& not granted) right there in plain English. His opinion isn't the law, though he wants it to be, & that's where his confusion starts.