you are really getting off the Deep End now!
What do you think the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is,if not to defend your Right to Life?
I can see why your Politicians are crapping all over you Guys,in spite of the splendid Constitution of yours!
Some Countries would be glad to have one like it,and would be willing to defend it,instead of helping the Politicians to water it down a little bit at a time!
Makes you wonder!

I can see you're not getting it at all!

You are welcome to your opinion but you are using twisted logic. The purpose of the "well regulated" population of the US was also to defend itself and the country. The population was expected to arm itself with whatever it could so as to, if needed, act as an effective military force. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the "keep and bear arms" issue.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness indeed.
"Conceptual infiltration" another meaning is "Common Sense".
Which, I might add, too many are lacking nowdays.

Again, you are reacting politically, not factually. Reread the Constitution if you care to, you wont find Right To Life in there.

I'm not saying I am opposed to it, I am pointing out that you can't both pretend to be defending the written words and intentions of the Constitution, and be making things up that aren't in it at the same time.

At least, not unless you want to completely undermine your own arguments from the start.

All I would ask of you, is to explain how "well regulated" means "not to be regulated in any way" at the same time.

Oh, and perhaps toss in an explanation of how that question makes ME the one using "twisted logic."

what do you think the Bill of Rights is for?

Exactly. "We hold some truths to be self evident!"

The bill of rights was not made to give the Government the "right" to regulate anything. It was made to give the "people" the right to keep and bear arms to the extent that they could, if needed, be a "well regulated" (read that as effective) fighting force to defend themselves against all threats including the government itself.

During the revolutionary period a militia was very small in each state to be called up when needed to form a regulated militia. Most of the "militia" were civilians who hunted and farmed to feed their families.
Their right to keep and bear arms was given to them not only to feed their families but also to protect themselves and country when needed.
Much the same way that we have a Texas State Guard that is under command of the governor. Texans have the right to keep and bear arms not only for their own protection but to defend the state when and if needed. Common sense actually.

o crap, we better get the guns ASAP!

I see a pattern there.

god damn all these 0.6% murders and 0.2% mass shootings, please obomba save us, take all of our firearms.

Again, if you want to debate about what the Constitution does or doesn't say, then quote the Constitution. Not the Declaration of Independence, which NO party has ever been willing to vote into having any legal standing in the U.S.



This is a non-answer response. A rhetorical question with no answer included.

The point I am trying to make, since this subject IS important to us all, is that too many people are neither reading or thinking through what they read, before leaping to declare that something in the Constitution says something they want to believe it says.

I am not saying that I support any and all, or even any specific regulations being proposed. I'm trying to get more people to argue more accurately, and stop playing the same repetitive and false rationalizations, which are standing in the way of doing anything at all, to respond to real challenges facing Americans.

As for the above idea that mass killings are a small proportion of deaths, and should therefore be entirely accepted and ignored as acceptable, I call nonsense on that altogether.

noone said mass shooting are accepted or ignored, i sure didnt. i was saying for the government to try to take a constitutionally protected right, because of something that causes that small amount of annual deaths, is ridiculous. gun control is not about guns, its about control.

my personal opinion is that the founding fathers did not restrict cannons(the closest at the time to weapons of mass destruction).
so can any one own them yes. should anyone own them???? my question to those with the time and the desire is.... what are these stats....

deaths caused by rightfully owned arms and their rightful owners
deaths caused by not rightfully owned arms.

and i think you will find that more regulation will not substantially reduce the death toll.

so i say not obsolete

i agree, every city they tried gun control in hasn't done squat... more people are murdered in Chicago than the whole state of Georgia, which has an open carry law...

http://americangunfacts.com/
http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/

You want to make debate rules while breaking standardized debate rules.

I know exactly where my quotes came from and I did not say that my "truths" comment came from the Constitution. Nice try. However, it's meaning is well in context.

You deleted my actual quote and discussion from the Constitution and then claimed I needed to use quotes (which actually isn't required when discussing the history and context).

You set up a "straw man" argument to shoot down without making ANY discussion on the actual point I made ... which is backed up by many scholars of the Constitution. Perhaps you should study the topic before making yourself an expert.

If you don't know what "well regulated" meant during that period, you don't know the intent of the amendment. Period.

It doesn't have to be. The Declaration of Independence outlined it as an "inalienable right". Meaning; regardless of what any other document says, citizens should know they have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". No government can tell us otherwise.

It also states that if the government becomes "destructive to these ends" it is the "right" and responsibility to alter and/or abolish said government. This is where the second amendment comes in. If the meaning were only that people working for the government could have arms, then how could the people be guaranteed the ability to "alter" or "abolish" said government?

The Declaration is a mindset, a statement made that encourages people to keep their independence, rather than hand the power to make ALL decisions to a select body of people. If the constitution is the brain, the Declaration of Independence is the heart. One cannot survive without the other.

I believe it was Jefferson who said; "If men cannot be trusted to govern themselves, then how can they be trusted to govern others? Or has god granted us angels in the form of kings to watch over us? Let history answer this question."