Draft:The 2nd Amendment protects all citizens right to possess unlimited arms of any type.

From Gun Retort

Short Retort[edit | edit source]

Claim Rationale[edit | edit source]

  • It says "a military force created by and of the people is necessary to maintain freedom. Therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
  • The same verbiage is used in other amendments as well. It specifies that is is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It says we have the right to a militia as well. It in no ways restricts the rights of the people. It ONLY restricts the goveenment from infringment.
  • The constitution and amendments apply to restricting the government not the people.
  • It clearly states the right of the PEOPLE. Not the right of the militia or military. in fact the military and militia have no rights at all. We the people have rights.
  • Anything that restricts the ability of US citizens to have access to military weapons and munitions is infringment by definition.

Retort Deep-Dive[edit | edit source]

the 2nd wasn't put in the Constitution to guarantee an uninfringed individual right to keep and bear arms. It was put in the Constitution to guarantee the Federal Government couldn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd wasn't a federalist idea, it was an antifederalist idea. It was a new radical Republican court that did what even the original radical Republicans wouldn't do, they ignored the original intent of the 2nd and incorporated it into the 14th.


Pro-Control: None of our side of the Revolution ever had an uninfringed individual right to keep and bear arms. Even our ancestors of the Revolution didn't. They didn't as British Subjects, and they didn't as Citizens or residents of the new States. They simultaneously declared their freedom, and transferred part of their natural rights of self-defense to their new States, and empowered those States to guard and protect their community.

Perhaps part of your side of that fight found themselves on the losing side of the revolution, abandoned by the British, and faced with the choice to cede part of their natural rights to their communities for their common defense and safety, join the new States or flee. Perhaps they resented that choice, but it they stayed, they joined and their natural rights were infringed for the good of all.

Perhaps some of your ancestors came here after the revolution and joined our community, they too accepted the social contract and ceded part of their natural rights to their new communities, and each of us born here did the same when we came of age.

We still have our natural rights, of course, and if we object to their infringement we're free to leave. But, if we stay, we accept infringement of those rights.

The Courts have incorporated the 2nd into the 14th, or at least they say they have, but they didn't recognize an uninfringed individual right to keep and bear arms. Returning an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms to individuals would not only upset the balance between individual rights and community power, it would threaten the social contract itself.


Pro-Gun: “the 2nd wasn't put in the Constitution to guarantee an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.”

Yes it was. It recognizes an extant right, and rights don’t come from the government. They are inalienable.


Pro-Control: You're correct that rights don't come from government. You're also correct that those rights remain with us. But those rights may be voluntarily limited, infringed when we enter into the social contract. It's the idea that the rights of the individual can be uninfringed without undoing the social contract that I find objectionable.

DC vs Heller[edit | edit source]

Mcdonald vs Chicago[edit | edit source]

Related[edit | edit source]

Pages Tagged: SecondAmendment