Normally, I would tell a commie to go kick rocks, but my daughter is 15 and I don't want give that response in front of her.

It seems more often, I am having to argue for The Second Amendment with commies.

Here are areas I would like calm responses:

1. Commie says "regulated" means they can pass laws to control me.
I usually say that regulated means well equipped. This means I can have arms capable of matching whatever a tyrant would assault me with.

2. Commie says the word "Militia" means the military and not me and I have no right to own a gun.
I usually say a Militia is a citizen army and an individual can be a Militia.

3. Commie says a "free State" means government and not me.
I generally say that just after "free State", the amendments specifically says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


To me, The Second Amendment is clear and I have never understood why it is always in debate.

Thanks in advance and I look forward to your responses.

The Declaration of Independence declares that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

An "unalienable right" is one bestowed by God and is not dependent upon sanction by any individual or state.

Note the language of the Second Amendment: "...the right...shall not be infringed."

The Constitution acknowledges that the right of self defense is not granted; it is innate, an unalienable right.

I'm certain this is not what you were looking for, but you can bet your bottom dollar that any anti is going to believe that the Second Amendment grants to citizens the right to keep and bear arms, so, there's something else for your toolkit.

Short response is that the 2A has become unclear, b/c language evolves. Word meanings change. Often people don't understand the 2A, b/c they apply modern definitions to words such as well-regulated and militia, which understandably changes the interpretation.

A good example is gay. If you look at 18th Century literature, when writers used the word gay, it had nothing to do w/ homosexuality.

Another is handsome. If you read something like Jane Austen novels, attractive females in that era were often described as handsome. Is there any woman alive today who would like to be described as handsome? Doubtful, as handsome has a masculine connotation now that it did not 200+ years ago.

If they are so confident in their interpretation of the 2A, challenge them to go research the word etymologies and see if sources such as OED support their interpretations.

I would avoid holding an, "I'm right; you're wrong," attitude. Interpretation of the 2A is hotly debated, and you can find many pro & anti academics & experts to support your opinion, including former Supreme Court Justices who are/were anti-2A.

If you challenge someone to research the word etymologies, you aren't challenging their politics. If someone does the research in good faith, they should at the least come away w/ an understanding that those words had different definitions during the time they were written.

Your contrarians don't have to change their minds about their politics regarding the 2A, but they might come away w/ a better understanding of the English of the 2A.

Thanks for the replies. I wish this forum had a like button.

I simply look at them and smile and say, “why bless your heart” and walk away.

The 2A is not a simple thing. There are many directions to go in educating the ignorant. But for a simple conversation I use the following; The 2nd Amendment says "for some reasons, a particular right shall not be restricted or hindered in any way". There are 2 parts, with the first giving the why and the second giving the who and what.

The second clause states who, which is people, have this right. Not the government, not only wealthy people, not just white people, not the military. People means every person. What is the right? To keep and bear arms. That means to own and carry weapons. Not just 18th century muskets, but arms. Arms means weapons in general. What is the limit of this right? Unlimited because the government is prohibited from even diddling around the edges in any way.

The first clause can say anything, so there's no need to argue definitions. "Kitties like marshmallows, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" works just as well. In this case nobody would claim only cats have rkba, because the 2nd clause tells us it is persons who have this unrestrictable right.

Usually the response to this is something about reasonable restrictions, or arguing that "shall not be infringed" means crimes with guns can't be illegal. Most of the time you'll be talking to someone who has no understanding of the Constitution. I sometimes use the 1A as an example, "Congress shall make no law .." actually means they cannot make a law restricting religion or free speech. Yes, you can yell FIRE in a crowded theater if you believe there is a fire. You cannot yell FIRE to incite panic. You cannot legally slander someone. Same with the 2A, you can be prohibited committing harm with a gun, but it is the harm which is restricted not the method.

Which brings up the 5A if the other person is still in the conversation. The 5A is the mechanism for protecting liberty but allowing rights to be taken from individuals who are convicted of doing harm. No person shall be deprived Life, Liberty, or Property without first having due process of law, aka their day in court.

A critical point is that no person can have a right restricted until a proper legal process finds them unworthy. In the case of free speech this means the government cannot require a person pass a qualification test or pay for a license to state their opinion. We used to say "Innocent until proven guilty", and it was understood shorthand for you are free to act until you do wrong and are convicted of it.

Usually the other person brings up reasonable restrictions. I like to ask them where it is in the Constitution. Where does Congress get the power to make such laws? Where does the President via agencies get the power? Where does the Supreme court get the authority to allow reasonable restrictions?

quote:

Originally posted by josp:
I simply look at them and smile and say, “why bless your heart” and walk away.

Which has a whole different meaning to some folks, including me.

When I discuss the 2nd Amendment, I say based at looking at the Federalist Papers, that the authors wanted the states to have available to them a pool of self armed, and at least semi-self trained (meaning they knew how to shoot) men, who can be used for the state to form a militia. And one of the main purposes they wanted the states to be able for form a militia was to oppose a central government run amok.

So the "well regulated" clause refers to the militia itself, while the "right to keep and bear arms" clause refers directly to individuals. Because, and Antonin Scalia pointed out in his opinion in the Heller decision, everywhere else in the constitution, the term "The right of the people.." is meant to confer a direct individual right.

1. From what I’ve heard/read, “well regulated” as used back then meant “well practiced”, hence why they were called the Regulars.

2/3. I thought there was already established legal precedent that specified that the militia was any adult of fighting age (males back then) and that the government was not what the 2A was referring to. Someone will have to help me out on those.

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:
1. From what I’ve heard/read, “well regulated” as used back then meant “well practiced”, hence why they were called the Regulars.

2/3. I thought there was already established legal precedent that specified that the militia was any adult of fighting age (males back then) and that the government was not what the 2A was referring to. Someone will have to help me out on those.

The Militia acts of 1792 are the legal precedent you are seeking.

Text of the Act
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...
...That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter,How to be armed and accoutred. provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out

quote:

Originally posted by xd45man:
It seems more often, I am having to argue for The Second Amendment with commies.

Why? Is it unavoidable for some reason?

Learned a long time ago not to argue with the irrational, and trust me, I used to. Not any more. It is a complete waste of time and energy; I will not change their minds, nor will they change mine. And it always devolves to me using facts and them using pure emotion and false commie talking points they believe are gospel. Walk away.

Read the opinion in D.C. v Heller. Here is a link.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...ons/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Antonin Scalia, who is a lot smarter than most people, answered all of those points. And, because Scalia was also a good writer, the text of the opinion is readable.

He addresses all of this from a historical and textual perspective.

But, your commie friend is just wrong. Heller put all of those arguments to rest. It is simply not law in the United States that "militia" means the state, for example. Scalia explains quite nicely why this isn't the law, but even if you think the Heller Court was wrong, you are shit out of luck, but guess who gets to say what the law, in fact, is? You guessed it - the Supreme Court.

You seem to be arguing the wrong point.

The right to keep and bear arms is the right of the people.
You are arguing about the militia for some reason.

I came across this exercise today. Replace arms w/ books, so anti-gun people won't instinctively convolute the wording & syntax of the 2A.

A well educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Ask them if they'd oppose this amendment. Would they interpret it to mean that everyone should have the right to keep & read books or only those who have professional educator credentials or work in academia?

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:
I came across this exercise today. Replace arms w/ books, so anti-gun people won't instinctively convolute the wording & syntax of the 2A.

A well educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Ask them if they'd oppose this amendment. Would they interpret it to mean that everyone should have the right to keep & read books or only those who have professional educator credentials or work in academia?

This is a great one.

I just smile and nod while feeling my big iron under my shirt the whole time.
You will never bring these idiots to reason so why waste your time?

I’m fresh out of calm responses and halfway past simply rude responses. Sorry.

The bill of rights is for the citizenry, not the government. Then ask if freedom of speech is only for the government.