CDZ Immigration and Gun Debate Similarity?

[jwoodie]

The flaw in your logic is obvious.

Clearly the founding fathers intended for the 2nd Amendment to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government.

It is intended to serve as a deterrent.

What is it that you believe the 2nd Amendment was intended to do? And what is the basis for your belief?

1. If the flaw in my logic is so obvious, why don't you spell it out?

2. There was no standing army of the federal government. The 2nd Amendment guaranteed each State the right to defend its individual sovereignty.

3. See above.

4. See above. The basis for my belief is the plain wording of the Amendment and the fact that it was added after the Constitutional Convention as a condition demanded by individual States as part of their ratifications.

 

[miketx]

I have recently noticed a similarity in the debates over these issues: Whereas opponents of illegal immigration enforcement always conflate the issue to include all immigrants, so do opponents of of any restrictions on gun ownership conflate the issue to include all firearms.

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

I'm okay with banning assault immigrants

Could have saved Kate Steinle.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I have recently noticed a similarity in the debates over these issues: Whereas opponents of illegal immigration enforcement always conflate the issue to include all immigrants, so do opponents of of any restrictions on gun ownership conflate the issue to include all firearms.

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

I'm okay with banning assault immigrants

Could have saved Kate Steinle.

So could being responsible with your gun

 

[ding]

If jwoodie is unable to explain what he believes the founding fathers intended the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to be, how can he tell us what the founding fathers didn't intend the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to be

Could it possibly be that jwoodie is practicing critical theory?

Critical theory is Cultural Marxist practice of criticizing what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

So if the OP can't tell us what the 2nd Amendment is, how can he expect to be able to tell us what it isn't?

 

[ding]

The flaw in your logic is obvious.

Clearly the founding fathers intended for the 2nd Amendment to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government.

It is intended to serve as a deterrent.

What is it that you believe the 2nd Amendment was intended to do? And what is the basis for your belief?

1. If the flaw in my logic is so obvious, why don't you spell it out?

2. There was no standing army of the federal government. The 2nd Amendment guaranteed each State the right to defend its individual sovereignty.

3. See above.

4. See above. The basis for my belief is the plain wording of the Amendment and the fact that it was added after the Constitutional Convention as a condition demanded by individual States as part of their ratifications.

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The flaw in your logic is trying to prove that well regulated means being regulated by the entity that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect us from. Which is precisely why the 2nd Amendment explicitly limits the government from infringing (aka regulating) this right.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

The states are not sovereign. They accepted the terms and limitations established through the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Amendment process. They are bound, not sovereign. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the citizens of the United States the right to defend their liberty and freedom from the federal government.

 

[jwoodie]

So if the OP can't tell us what the 2nd Amendment is, how can he expect to be able to tell us what it isn't?

Appealing to the audience is no substitute for critical thinking or the ability to express one's own thoughts.

In case you missed it, the Second Amendment was added after the Constitution was submitted to the States for ratification, because several States objected to the original document. At that time, federal supremacy had not been established (before the Civil War/14th Amendment) and none of the first ten amendments applied to the States. Instead, these States demanded acknowledgement of their right right to maintain well-regulated militias in order to maintain their own security (and sovereignty) as Free States.

If you disagree, please be specific and avoid unsupported generalities.

 

[jwoodie]

The flaw in your logic is trying to prove that well regulated means being regulated by the entity that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect us from. Which is precisely why the 2nd Amendment explicitly limits the government from infringing (aka regulating) this right.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

The states are not sovereign. They accepted the terms and limitations established through the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Amendment process. They are bound, not sovereign. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the citizens of the United States the right to defend their liberty and freedom from the federal government.

The flaw in your logic is that the document approved at the Constitutional Convention did not include any reference to bearing arms. The first ten amendments were later added at the insistence of individual states who conditioned their ratifications upon them. These amendments only limited the federal government's power; individual States were free to impose whatever regulations and restrictions they wanted as "Free States."

Please do not conflate arguments supporting the original Constitution (before the 2nd Amendment was considered) or subsequent court decisions (after the 2nd Amendment was added) with the plain wording of the 2nd Amendment as adopted at that time.

 

[ding]

So if the OP can't tell us what the 2nd Amendment is, how can he expect to be able to tell us what it isn't?

Appealing to the audience is no substitute for critical thinking or the ability to express one's own thoughts.

In case you missed it, the Second Amendment was added after the Constitution was submitted to the States for ratification, because several States objected to the original document. At that time, federal supremacy had not been established (before the Civil War/14th Amendment) and none of the first ten amendments applied to the States. Instead, these States demanded acknowledgement of their right right to maintain well-regulated militias in order to maintain their own security (and sovereignty) as Free States.

If you disagree, please be specific and avoid unsupported generalities.

The Bill of Rights were ratified by the states.

I dispute the argument that the Bill of Rights does not place restrictions on State government.

I understand that some rights were to only apply to the federal government and not the states (i.e. the establishment clause for example) and I can show you how I know this.

I have never seen any evidence that the framers did not intend for the whole body of the people to be able to own and possess arms which would serve as deterrent to a tyrannical government.

To allow states the right to infringe upon our right to bear arms would render the 2nd Amendment rights meaningless and open a backdoor for collusion between federal and states that the founding fathers would have never intended.

So can you show me where the founders believed it would be acceptable for the states to infringe upon the citizens of the united states from being able to bear arms?

 

[ding]

The flaw in your logic is trying to prove that well regulated means being regulated by the entity that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect us from. Which is precisely why the 2nd Amendment explicitly limits the government from infringing (aka regulating) this right.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

The states are not sovereign. They accepted the terms and limitations established through the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Amendment process. They are bound, not sovereign. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the citizens of the United States the right to defend their liberty and freedom from the federal government.

The flaw in your logic is that the document approved at the Constitutional Convention did not include any reference to bearing arms. The first ten amendments were later added at the insistence of individual states who conditioned their ratifications upon them. These amendments only limited the federal government's power; individual States were free to impose whatever regulations and restrictions they wanted as "Free States."

Please do not conflate arguments supporting the original Constitution (before the 2nd Amendment was considered) or subsequent court decisions (after the 2nd Amendment was added) with the plain wording of the 2nd Amendment as adopted at that time.

There is no flaw in my argument as the intentions of the framers were very clear. The timing of ratification of the Bill of Rights is irrelevant. They were ratified by the states.

I addressed the rest in my last post.

 

[jwoodie]

The Bill of Rights were ratified by the states.

I dispute the argument that the Bill of Rights does not place restrictions on State government.

I understand that some rights were to only apply to the federal government and not the states (i.e. the establishment clause for example) and I can show you how I know this.

I have never seen any evidence that the framers did not intend for the whole body of the people to be able to own and possess arms which would serve as deterrent to a tyrannical government.

To allow states the right to infringe upon our right to bear arms would render the 2nd Amendment rights meaningless and open a backdoor for collusion between federal and states that the founding fathers would have never intended.

So can you show me where the founders believed it would be acceptable for the states to infringe upon the citizens of the united states from being able to bear arms?

1. The Bill of Rights was not applied to the States until the "reverse incorporation" decision of SCOTUS based on the 14th Amendment passed after the Civil War.

2. Good for you.

3. It is not up to me to disprove your (double) negative hypothesis.

4. Unsupported opinion. States have numerous regulations and restrictions on firearms.

5. It is not up to me to disprove your negative hypothesis.

 

[ding]

The Bill of Rights were ratified by the states.

I dispute the argument that the Bill of Rights does not place restrictions on State government.

I understand that some rights were to only apply to the federal government and not the states (i.e. the establishment clause for example) and I can show you how I know this.

I have never seen any evidence that the framers did not intend for the whole body of the people to be able to own and possess arms which would serve as deterrent to a tyrannical government.

To allow states the right to infringe upon our right to bear arms would render the 2nd Amendment rights meaningless and open a backdoor for collusion between federal and states that the founding fathers would have never intended.

So can you show me where the founders believed it would be acceptable for the states to infringe upon the citizens of the united states from being able to bear arms?

1. The Bill of Rights was not applied to the States until the "reverse incorporation" decision of SCOTUS based on the 14th Amendment passed after the Civil War.

2. Good for you.

3. It is not up to me to disprove your (double) negative hypothesis.

4. Unsupported opinion. States have numerous regulations and restrictions on firearms.

5. It is not up to me to disprove your negative hypothesis.

I think you missed my point.

I can show you how the establishment cause of the 1st Amendment was debated and proposed to apply to the states and rejected in the senate.

Can you show me where they considered applying the 2nd Amendment restriction on government to the states and then rejected that?

 

[evenflow1969]

I have recently noticed a similarity in the debates over these issues: Whereas opponents of illegal immigration enforcement always conflate the issue to include all immigrants, so do opponents of of any restrictions on gun ownership conflate the issue to include all firearms.

Isn't it time to set aside these straw men and discuss these issues in a rational manner?

Apples and oranges. You have a constitutional right to own a firearm. There is no constitutional right to illegally cross the US border.

Here is what makes it apples to apples. They are both intractable situations in which our country is hopelessly divided. I do not see much movement coming on either front. I think we should spend more time on issues that may be actually solved. Life asset forfeture and getting rid of the patriot act and all the laws folowing and related. Our polititions have our eys focused on things that can not be changed while they get away with robbing us blind.