Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
ololol!!!!!1!!1!!eleven!
That interpretation simply doesn't account for why you would include A in stating C. The First Amendment doesn't include a justification - nor does the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, or eighth. The Second Amendment is unique in this respect, if your interpretation is correct. At the very least, we should ask why that is. The only reasonable conclusion to make is that the "justification" is, in fact, a limitation on the right being proposed. Since that reading is supportable by the text, and doesn't render any clause irrelevant or redundant, it is the correct one.
Look, just about every Supreme Court and Federal Appeals Court decision on the question until this most recent case has taken the opposite tack. There's a reason for that.
Nope. The Constitution doesn't require the states to have a militia, much less regulate one. It's a right they have, protected by the Second Amendment, but they have no obligation to exercise it.
Yeah, but in either case someone has to prove that a militia is in fact necessary to the security of the state.
Let's not treat the Constitution the same way fundies treat the Bible.
The first Amendment also does not include a specific condition under which it is valid, neither do the others. Looking at the information the wording was derived from, there is no reason to assume that the statement is a condition on the rights enumerated, rather than a statement of position that necessitates those rights.
ege: A standing army does protect the member states of a federation, but they are not subject to the state governments. Local militias provide states with a degree of control over their own security, but without the additional expense that maintiaining a standing army on the state level would require.
See, I find this whole thing bizarre, but I find it even more bizarre that you can be very pro-gun while essentially eschewing all the standard given reasons. Seems to me like your conclusions re: 2nd Am and such are spot on, but it begs the question: so why are you pro-gun?
Or possibly: what do you mean by pro-gun? Handguns, concealed carry, hunting rifles, target shooting limited to a range, etc. Several of those I can see being perfectly reasonable with proper training, but the CC or guns in the home idea in the US seems frankly absurd to me.
If you are (or for others who are) pro-CC and so on, do you support carrying of knives in public, or right to own RPGs in the home? After all, it's possible someone could ram-raid your house or place of business, so a rocket launcher is a fine form of defence or deterrent. If not, why not? Where's the line that makes guns special?
Other than a rocket launcher has no other intended use than military action, and designed to be used on the battlefield against armored vehicles?
If you enjoy making silly arguments to prove a silly point (guns R just az bad az rockit lonchers LOL), go for it. I suppose that's what D&D is all about it. Your point really has no merit in terms of the discussion as firearms have already proven time and time again they have a place in self-defense, and hunting. RPGs, mortars, C4, etc do not.
Stop giving Ted Nugent ideas.
I would disagree fully with the interperetation of "State" (note, with a capital letter) indicating the state-level divisions of the Federal government - note, for instance, in the Tenth Amendment, the only Amendment where there is an unambiguous reference to the state subdivisions:
Why, in writing the guiding document establishing the rights of the people in the United States, would the authors make such a change in referring to the states not only in the singular, but also by capitalization, thereby indicating stylistically that there is a reference to a singular, unique body? Rather, I believe there are two alternatives here, at least:
a) the "State" (capitalized, singular), stands for the nation in the United States, in particular, the people of that nation.
b) the "State" (capitalized, singular) refers to the singular government of the United States.
In both cases, it is never expressly delegated to the states alone to form militias in that Amendment, nor is it expressly prohibited to the people to form militias of their own volition, or to bear arms in the event that the standing populace would be armed and ready to form a militia if the intention arose, which is indeed what I believe the Founding Fathers intended - to have a populace armed and ready to form a militia in the imminent need of one, and not to produce a militia and then arm it.
While you are fundamentally correct in saying that the primary concern of the Anti-Federalists was that of a concern against Central Government, I believe it's incorrect to state that the Anti-Federalists were in favor of devolving political control to the states as a matter of belief in that system in and of itself. Rather, the Anti-Federalists favored the system of decentralized government as an express means to defend individual liberty, that a decentralized government would have a far more difficult time in infringing the rights of the individual, whereas the Centralized government, by merit of its concentrated power, would find it easier to do so.
Yes, the Anti-Federalists were primarily concerned with a strong central government, and so made the restriction of that their primary goal, and in doing so neglected the possible abuses of power in the state government. However, this does not indicate the purpose of a Bill of Rights being a sheer restriction on Centralized Government in favor of State Government by its own merits, but, as mentioned many times in documents such as the Anti-Federalist Papers, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was expressly to defend individual rights.
I quote from the Anti-Federalist papers, Paper No. 84, entitled "On The Lack of a Bill of Rights":
The source is: http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/
As we can see in these passages, the express worry of the Anti-Federalists was not the preservation of States' Rights, but rather, the preservation of Individual's rights. The Bill of Rights was a defense of the Individual Liberty through a restraint of the Central Government (cf. Anti-Federalist No. 9), whose defense of the state governments was the belief that the state governments would defend personal rights, or at least ensure them.
Furthermore, if the Bill of Rights was intended to deal with the States, why would every single other Amendment in the Bill of Rights, with the partial exception of the Tenth refer to the rights of the people, and the protection of those rights? Again, quoted from No. 89:
Note how Brutus references rights that refer entirely to individuals, and not to states - his worries are based on the defense of individual liberty, and absolutely not on the rights of the states.
So, why, in the middle of an entire document dealing with the defense of personal liberty, and dealing with the defense of individual rights would the Bill of Rights assert a right solely in the domain of a state government?
It certainly is not writing the first clause out of existence. It establishes the reason and the justification behind the law, and the spirit in which the law is formed. Furthermore, if every single word has a concrete implication, why is the concrete implication of "the right of the People" not, as it would concretely be, a right expressly granted to the people, and not to the state? Furthermore, there are many sections in the Constitution wherein there is established a justification and explanation for an act, not the least of which being the preamble.
And yet, it certainly does not write the preamble out of existence to suggest that its main purpose is to establish motive and reason for the creation of a new government.
While it might suggest that we have repudiated the Right of Rebellion, it does not by any means suggests that the Framers of the Constitution repudiated this concept, indeed, judging from a great deal of their works and words, which appear even in the Federalist Papers, not to mention spread well throughout the Anti-Federalist, that the concept of a Social Contract based on Locke's theories, with extending implication to the Right of Rebellion was alive and well within the framers.
Even though we might have repudiated it, the argument here is about the frame of mind of whose who composed the Constitution; given the level of belief in the ideas of Locke's theories (and those of others), it is by no means wrong to believe that they as well held the Right of Rebellion against a tyrannical government still valid.
You would have a better chance arguing for automatic weapons; rpgs aren't considered small arms, and even during the American Revolution, they would have been more likely considered ordnance, which if I remember correctly, was something that was specifically to be kept by the state for the militia.
Just saying, they have a place in AWESOME hunting.
The capital letter argument is not a good one. Throughout the text of the Constitution, the Founders referred to individual states with the spelling, "State."
Here are a couple examples:
Because the Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on federal power, not guarantees of individual rights. Consider the First Amendment: This is an express limitation on the power of Congress, but not on the power of the states.
Until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (and really until the Warren Court, almost a hundred years after that), states were free to restrict political speech if their own state constitutions did not prohibit it. Traditionally, states were seen as being closer to the people, and guarantors of individual liberties, protecting those liberties against a potentially tyrannical national government. The idea of individual liberties and the rights of states are essentially linked in the anti-federalist view.
Let me try and illustrate my point with a less politically charged portion of the Constitution. Suppose I took the view that the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution allowed Congress the power to do anything it wanted, beyond those powers expressly granted by the Constitution. I would be then writing out of existence, or making meaningless, the tenth amendment, which limits the powers of Congress to those explicitly granted by the Constitution, and thus my interpretation could be discarded as wrong. I could argue that the tenth amendment is simply a statement of the intent of the Framers to limit the power of the government over the states and the people, but that the "necessary and proper" clause makes it basically redundant, and I would be wrong to do so.
I suppose then we should ask whether or not we have also rejected, de facto, the universal right to bear arms. If the concept of state by state secession is tied to the concept of the right to bear arms through this mutual justification of the right to rebellion, and we've since removed the ability of states to secede de facto, rather than by explicit Constitutional amendment, we ought to consider whether or not we've done the same for the universal right to bear arms. I think also that the importance of this concept is overstated. While certain public figures of the time might have supported such an ideal (notably Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson), they were forced to compromise in creating our national government. The people they compromised with, Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Adams, etc. - the Federalists - would have adamantly opposed a universal right of rebellion (as evidenced by their condemnation of both Shay's Rebellion before the Constitution and the Whiskey Rebellion after it).
Actually, no, his point is quite valid. The amendment doesn't specify firearms. If the intent was to preserve the ability of the people to rise up against the government, then clearly the right of the people to "keep and bear" RPGs, mortars, C4, anti-helicopter rocket launchers, armored vehicles, and so on should be protected.
The concepts of self-defense and hunting have absolutely no relevance to the Second Amendment. Note that the pro-gun interpretation of the amendment is that the initial clause is a statement of intent about the second one. If that's so, then the first clause clearly demonstrates that the "arms" specified by the second clause must include pretty much any military material, up to and including explosives.
Read the transcript of yesterday's Supreme Court hearing. The Supreme Court seems to thing they have a relevance to the 2nd Amendment.
Well gee whizz mister, I'm sure sorry I didn't give an example of non-military action that it could be used in, like say someone ramraiding your store!
Yes, it's a silly example, but what you singularly failed to do is what I asked, namely explain why guns are a special case instead of RPGs or whatever specious piece of military hardware you fancy - or indeed, flick-knives, machetes, swords, and so on. I wasn't trying to jizz all over your nice new hairdo, I am just trying to understand what reasoning people give for guns being a special case, especially when as in Feral's argument, he dismisses the usual pro-gun positions.
Oh, and did I say that I can understand guns being used for hunting or shooting on a range. Yes I did!
Reading comp plz.
Arms specifically referred to personal weapons (rifles, muskets, swords and pistols). Rockets, mortars and cannon were referred to as field pieces or ordnance. According to the Articles of Confederation, the States (supporting your point of referring to individual states with a capital "S") were to maintain supplies of field pieces, arms and ammunition. The Militia Act of 1792 notes that militia members were to provide their own muskets, pistols and horses. The Articles of Confederation ceased to be in effect by the time of the Militia Act, but it does show that they drew a distinction between field pieces and arms.
Edit: Just to be clear, "arms" had several definitions at the time, but in the context of being borne by soldiers, it referred to personal weapons.
You're being damn retarded. It's the process of law upon which society depends: it would be a very different system if judges could strike down laws for being stupid rather than unlawful.
The think is, the commas aren't in the places they would be were it simply one of rationale. In the actual Bill of Rights, it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While the states use various punctuation, I think we should use the original.
Now, commas were not used consistently at that time, being place phonetically and spread like buckshot, but these are quite telling, as I cannot imagine anybody pausing in the middle of the militia clause were it being used in the context you assert. So, we now come to what the structure then means, i.e, why would you pause or otherwise shift you pronunciation at those points?
Well, the most obvious reason is the parenthetical, so that, in informal writing, the amendment might read "A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free state), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (the comma is my own interpretation of how it would add together sensibly, as commas often hedge off pathetically and clauses).
Now, what would this mean? Well, remember the Latinate grammar I keep bringing up? This is where it is applicable. If I remember the ablative absolute (which is what the clause has been identified as) correctly, it is a specification under the circumstances under which the following statement is true. Therefore, we can further read the amendment as "[for] A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free state): the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now reading more into the ablative absolute, I may have been overly hasty in assigning parenthesis. A sentence with the same comma usage that has also been identified as the ablative absolute reads "The Americans, (with) their independence secured, formed a government." This would seem to substantiate Merkel and Uviller's analysis: "The linguistically correct reading of this unique construction ... is as though it said: Congress shall not limit the right of the people (that is, the potential members of the state militia) to acquire and keep the sort of arms appropriate to their military duty, so long as the following statement remains true: "an armed, trained, and controlled militia is the best — if not the only — way to protect the state government and the liberties of its people against uprisings from within and incursions or oppression from without."â€
Now "infringe" is also interesting in its contrast to "abridge." What's the difference? As I have somewhere to be soon, I'll let you guys debate it.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is an english construction called an absolute phrase. As you said, it does derive from the ablative absolute. Also like the ablative absolute, it is not a conditional phrase; it provides information, but is not connected grammatically to the rest of the sentence. Rather than meaning "if this is true" or "while this is true", the absolute phrase really just means "this is true".
Hey, wow, I don't see anybody doing that. Last I checked, there's not a clear and straightforward (if moderately difficult) method by which the bible can be changed. Nobody is claiming the Constitution to be a universal truth that cannot be wrong or improved. We're simply saying that it is the law, and until changed it stands. Which is, you know, true...at least for as long as we remain a constitutional republic.
Saying that perhaps we should require the supermajority put forward in the Constitution in order to modify it (or render a portion "obsolete") is not akin to saying it's the infallible word of god.
Or, in other words, stop being daft.
Well, at least one common argument is that explosives in particular are much harder to use without causing harm to bystanders. Sure, if I miss the guy breaking into my house the bullet may fly across the street and kill my neighbor. But it's unlikely, and becomes extremely unlikely if I hit my target. With explosives, like rockets/missiles/grenades, it becomes much more likely to employ one against an assailant without causing collateral damage...even if I actually hit my target. Same for the "olol nukes are arms" argument.
Now, assuming we're talking about militia use rather than self-defense use, it's also arguable that the second amendment would really only cover individual small arms that would commonly be issued to soldiers, and not crew-served weapons (like most grenade launchers, most belt-fed machine guns, etc). That it would be the responsibility of the individual states to provide heavy weapons (for defense against either a foreign power, or a tyrannical federal government), and that the people are limited to small arms.
Note that personal individual weapons does include both pistols and shotguns, as both are commonly carried by individuals across branches in our armed forces.
Besides which, you're being an idiot. The odds that I'd be in a situation where I would use a gun for home defense are remote (though again, it's arguable that private gun ownership may help make it even less likely). But the odds that I'd use a fucking RPG for home defense (or self defense) are beyond remote. They're essentially zero.
Then again, this is also assuming an actual organized militia.
Actually, you could argue that no organized militia need already exist, but rather than the ability to raise one on demand (by having a citizenry with their own small arms and experience with their use) is all that's strictly necessary. Not something I'd expect an opponent of firearms rights to accept or agree with, obviously, but I think it's a valid argument.
Montana does not have it's own militia, for instance, but in a relatively short time they could easily organize one because (or so it seems) nearly every male past puberty in this state owns a gun or at least has some experience shooting one.
The state versions are inconsistent. The single comma is just more common. The one ratified by congress was the original, and so has precedence. It is the one housed in the national archives. I have case law backing me up on this.
People form militias, people form miltias bringing the guns they have and put their lives on the line for their communities. They dont do it 6 months from now, or 9 weeks from now, they do it now. The minute men were called that because they were ready to go at any time. If all the guns are kept in a central location all you accomplish is a butchery of your militia as they show up to be armed.
I would have a hard time looking the founding fathers in the eye and telling them that they meant only militias founded by the state should have the right to firearms. Times have moved on quite a bit, guns are more deadly, the army more organized, and we are now a world power.
However the spirit remains the same. Every able bodied man from the ages of 17-45 may in times of extreme crisis be called upon to grab their gun and assemble to defend their lives, family, and freedom. Maybe its not necessary now. Maybe it wont be necessary in a hundred years, or a thousand. As long as this nation endures it may not be necessary at all, but only a fool would say for sure it would never be necessary.
I can find no logical arguement to deny law abiding men and woman the right to bear arms.
And infringed only means eliminated, I believe. That means that your second amendment right, even an individual right, has not been broken unless the law says "no weapons."
Because its a bullshit interpretation designed to justify a political agenda?
Because do you really feel after fighting a WAR against the army based on civilians armed with their home defense/hunting rifles they really only meant for guns to be in the hands of the army/ the state to hand out in times of crisis but only to men between the ages of 17-45 and once a male turns 46 he would need to turn in or give away his firearms?
No, I mean it has to be subject to regulations, besides being between ages 17 and 45, like, maybe, you can't be a klansman, in prison, or something along those lines. I mean, seriously, do you think the founding fathers would have ever called the military-age male populace of the colonies "well regulated?" Have you never read or heard about what was going on in the south during the war?
Because Klansman should forfeit their rights?
The Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with requiring you to be in a well regulated militia. At all. Its to protect the peoples ability to form a "militia" in the time of need to protect themselves. The government does not need an amendment to be allowed to arm people in times of crisis. The government does not need a law to allow to it give soldiers weapons. These things have been going on since the first hunter gave the first gatherer a rock right before the dinosaurs attacked.
Perhaps you should devote more attention to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and less to trying to abstractly define well regulated. If the 2nd amendment had said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Would we be having this discussion?
Do you really think when the states got together to discuss this historic document they were thinking "Hey lets make sure we can give our militiamen firearms." Has any of the actions, of the states, ANYWHERE, in the first hundred years indicated they did not expect their citizens to own, know how to use, and be proficient in firearms so that they might protect themselves and their country in times of crisis.
Tell you what, why not just check out the Miltia act of 1792.
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 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, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, 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 power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
This pretty clearly spells out the government expected every male between the ages of 18-45 to own a gun. Every, single, one of them. By law. Yet this bullshit that the 2nd amendment is refering to arming militias continues to be propagated. Its a bullshit interpretation designed to forward a political agenda that has a pesky amendment in the way.
The amendment is there to PREVENT the government from taking away its citizens right to own firearms.
You highlight this word, as if it has some special relation to the second amendment. When, in fact, it's quite possible they meant and entirely different definition of "regulated" that has nothing to do with having legal "regulations" restricting who is part of it.
Regardless, obviously restrictions on this right are allowable just as they are allowable for every other right. Preferably under the strict scrutiny standard.
Really? So the only thing that qualifies as an "infringement" is an absolute and complete ban? Because I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I'm pretty sure infringement is not a binary condition, and that it's quite possible to infringe on this right in other less restrictive ways.
But, again, this doesn't mean any regulation of firearms ownership is automatically unconstitutional.
However, I have been enrolled by the Selective Service system. And, should I be called up for duty, there are a plethora of officers waiting to command me.
EDIT: And this still doesn't address the fact that the first clause is a declaration of purpose, not a restriction. We can go back and forth on the definition of a "well-regulated militia" but the right is still one of the people, at least for as long as our constitution says that militia is necessary. Which, of course, is why it doesn't read, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the members of that militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Aside from the fact that the 1903 act replaced the 1792 act, you also have to ask whether they would grant the right only to the militia, considering the composition of the militia was determined by the federal government.
The act itself has been replaced, HOWEVER, the reason this is important it is helps us glimpse the intentions of the founding fathers in adding the amendment at all. If we are to believe that the second amendment applies only to arming members of a militia, and state that is what the framers had in mind, then this clearly demonstrates what our founding fathers thought a militia to be. Every able bodied man between the ages of 18-45. Who was expected to OWN and PROVIDE his own firearm. This indicates the government never intended to arm or provide arms to the militia. Because they were supposed to, under their 2nd amendment protected rights, purchase a firearm and sufficient supplies so that were they ever called up they could fight for their country.
This clearly indicates the founding fathers intent. That every able 18-45 year old american be armed, and is consistant with the interpretation that the 2nd amendment is there to protect and individuals right to own firearms. That the founding fathers foresaw a day when someone might try and disarm the populous.
To quote from earlier in the thread read what Justice Scalia says
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's
any, any, any contradiction between reading the second
clause as a -- as a personal guarantee and reading the
first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not
necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia
that resisted the British was not State- managed. But
why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to
assume that since the framers knew that the way militias
were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing
a law against militias, but by taking away the people's
weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed.
The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need
a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
I think this says it beautifully. Our founding fathers, considering every able bodied male between the ages of 18-45 as a member of the militia state quite clearly that a well regulated militia IE the men of these united states being able and willing to come forth in times of crisis if called to defend their country being NECESSARY for a FREE State, the right of the people IE everyone to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The founding fathers are pretty clear on what they intended. The doubt in the wording only obfuscates the issue. First we ignore their intent, then we cast doubt upon their wording, then we begin to infringe upon the rights. Its all to follow a bullshit political agenda. They know they cant repeal the 2nd amendment, so they try and undermine it and see how much infringement people will endure. If your anti gun, thats fine. However dont start twisting the words of our founding fathers we know what they intended, we know what they wrote. Other drafts are quite clear on the intention they were going for. But dont try and claim that your version of history is right. The system exists to wipe the 2nd amendment out, use it.
Maybe you feel the militia is outdated, and the national guard is all we need. I would say that we can never know what will happen in the future, and just because we cant forsee a situation where every able bodied man isnt grabbing grandpas old rifle to fight and die beside his neighbors protecting his family doesnt mean one wont occur.
Never?
Let's stroll over to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
While I'm a proponent of gun control, I disagree with the "collective right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I do think there's an individual right to own a firearm.
However, the Constitutional right of gun ownership is framed within a context of a "well-regulated militia", and both the Congress and the states are explicitly granted that regulatory power by the Constitution. So I don't see how clarifying that the 2nd Amendment establishes an individual right would negate existing gun control laws that fall short of a complete ban.
When they wanted to require militiamen to own a particular set of arms is Patrick Henry refering only to militiamen when he says "The great object is that every man be armed, but can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms?" or " The "militia, sir, is our ultimate safety, the great object is that every man be armed . . . every one who is able may have a gun."
Or how about James Madison when he states "The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." and "It may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
Or Richard Henry Lee "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Should i also point out that the Constitution itself, as you wrote, already provides for the government to arm a militia. Why redundantly include that in a bill of individual rights? They didnt, they wouldnt. The second amendment is clear. Our founding fathers are clear. If you have any doubt about what our founding fathers intended read the Federalist Papers. Read their own words on the subject.
Saying its so doesnt make it so. Ive quoted our founding fathers, quoted the governments own laws on militias at the time. The proposition put forth that the 2nd amendment applies only to members of a militia is without merit.
See, but though that argument works for escalation of arms size, it doesn't work for minimisation. Why does nobody protest laws against carrying flick-knives and such if they are pro-gun?
Also, I think your argument also totally precludes the need for automatic weapons or certain types of ammunition, which tend to be a progun defence bugbear. The chances of you hitting innocent bystanders or rounds penetrating walls and hitting your neighbour are significantly increased if you have a 30-round full auto with armour piercing rounds, no?