SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Help me form calm responses to the commies.
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Help me form calm responses to the commies. Login/Join 
Member
posted
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.


** My Underdeveloped Collection **
Sig Sauer P229 .40 Black with Aluminum Grips
Sig Sauer P250 9mm Black
Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm
Springfield XD .40 Subcompact Black
Springfield XD .45 Tactical Bi-Tone
 
Posts: 274 | Location: Crestview Florida | Registered: July 23, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
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.


____________________________________________________

"You know, a long time ago, being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy." - Charles Manson
 
Posts: 99664 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of iron chef
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 2783 | Location: Texas | Registered: June 17, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Thanks for the replies. I wish this forum had a like button.


** My Underdeveloped Collection **
Sig Sauer P229 .40 Black with Aluminum Grips
Sig Sauer P250 9mm Black
Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm
Springfield XD .40 Subcompact Black
Springfield XD .45 Tactical Bi-Tone
 
Posts: 274 | Location: Crestview Florida | Registered: July 23, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I simply look at them and smile and say, “why bless your heart” and walk away.
 
Posts: 239 | Location: Pa | Registered: September 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
No More
Mr. Nice Guy
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 8388 | Location: On the mountain off the grid | Registered: February 25, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
No More
Mr. Nice Guy
posted Hide Post
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?
 
Posts: 8388 | Location: On the mountain off the grid | Registered: February 25, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I Deal In Lead
Picture of Flash-LB
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 9960 | Location: Gilbert Arizona | Registered: March 21, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 21029 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Spread the Disease
Picture of flesheatingvirus
posted Hide Post
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.


________________________________________

-- Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past me I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. --
 
Posts: 16577 | Location: New Mexico | Registered: October 14, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of creslin
posted Hide Post





This is where my signature goes.
 
Posts: 1350 | Location: Kernersville, NC | Registered: June 04, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of WyoRobert
posted Hide Post
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


Robert
------------------------------------------------

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. -- Marianne Williamson
 
Posts: 611 | Location: Pittsburgh | Registered: October 29, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Get Off My Lawn
Picture of oddball
posted Hide Post
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.



"I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965
 
Posts: 14808 | Location: Texas | Registered: May 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
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.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 52007 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Raised Hands Surround Us
Three Nails To Protect Us
Picture of Black92LX
posted Hide Post
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.


————————————————
You know it started in the garden when we walked way from Gods plan. We gave away dominion, placed it in the devils hands and Jesus took it back. Now we gain it all because He died. Name of names, God of gods, Jesus crucified!
Sleeping Giant - Defiance

I think that when those dark voices start calling our name in the back of our head we need to remind those voices who we belong to!
Andrew Schwab - Project 86
 
Posts: 24149 | Registered: September 06, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of iron chef
posted Hide Post
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?
 
Posts: 2783 | Location: Texas | Registered: June 17, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.


** My Underdeveloped Collection **
Sig Sauer P229 .40 Black with Aluminum Grips
Sig Sauer P250 9mm Black
Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm
Springfield XD .40 Subcompact Black
Springfield XD .45 Tactical Bi-Tone
 
Posts: 274 | Location: Crestview Florida | Registered: July 23, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Still finding my way
Picture of Ryanp225
posted Hide Post
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?
 
Posts: 10109 | Registered: January 04, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    Help me form calm responses to the commies.

© SIGforum 2022