Summations Only

Faith did no such thing. All this guy had were assertions. Percy's link had data to back it up. Faith has provided no data whatsoever.Comparing them as equal is insulting the intelligence of everyone in this debate. Except of course yourself and Faith. But isn't the % of homicides by gun the more relevant issue. You do know the topic is guns don't you?

You're such a troll.

That's all fine and dandy, but the prefatory clause does not limit the scope of the operative clause. Individuals have the right to own arms unconnected to any service in a militia.

I haven't gone through those yet, but I can accept the correlation. I'm willing to assume whatever causation you want for the sake of argument, if you have one?

Yes, I understand that this is your assertion. However, it does limit the scope of the operative clause. It is saying that this right exists because a well regulated militia is important to the security of a free state. I mean, to state otherwise is simply to try and remove context from the entire statement, so that you can own anything you want as far as weapons go. Why, when there is no punctuation informing us to do so, should we create a break between these two connected statements?"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."However, that is still unimportant to the point I was making to Faith that you completely missed. Her statement is that the citizen gun owners were called out to train from time to time. As this is no longer the case, a well regulated militia does not exist anymore, outside of the National Guard (regardless of ICANT's insistence to the contrary).Registration, however, could allow the government to continue these training sessions and allow for the argument to stand that the citizens are prepared to defend as a "well regulated militia". I see no where in the Constitution that says, "Because the British tried to take our guns away, nothing anyone can ever say will take away arms from even the most imbecilic and unsafe gun owners." Also, if you are correct and we should read these separately, then where in this clause is your right to use arms? According to Eli in Message 2068, the Oxford Dictionary describes "Bear arms" as "To serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."So, after we break the statement into pieces, as your argument requires, we get:"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."=Well, this is just a statement of the obvious at that time. The regular army was not exactly composed of as large of a body of individuals as our current regular military."The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."=You have a right to own firearms and use them in military service (as per the definition of bear arms) by joining a well regulated (as per Faith, group that trains and takes orders) militia, such as your local National Guard unit. However, this removes your right to use them to defend your home, your family, or anything else because these uses would not fall into the definition of Bear Arms.

Care to address my post instead of making personal attacks?Oh and is the stupid smiley face supposed to make you immune from criticism and the admins?

Its the actual official interpretation of the US as determined by the Supreme Court. No, not according to DC v Heller:

quote:

---

Held:

​

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2—53.

​

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2—22.

​

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

---

bold added for emphasisNote that they distinguish the citizens' militia from a militia in general. I'm not so sure about that. It doesn't talk about the right of the militia to have arms, it says that its the right of The People. Another possible interpretation goes like this:"Because the State is going to have a good militia, you know, 'cause their security depends on it, then the regular people should be able to arm themselves too." I didn't miss it, I said it was fine and dandy. I have no argument there. The 2nd amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. It assumes that the right exists and says that it shall not be infringed.The Supreme Court has ruled that its an individual right unconnected to service in a militia.Also, you don't need to amend the constitution in order for the military to have guns. Seriously, think about that. It cannot be talking about bearing arms for the military, that'd just be incredibly stupid. "Hey look guys, the Consitutions all done. Oh, shit... How's the army going to have guns!? OMG we've got to amend this thing."Further, look into the English Bill of Rights. It was very influencial on our own. It has the same thing:"no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law "The English version was all about identifying natural rights of the people in contrast to the divine rights of the king.And our entire Bill of Rights is about giving more rights to individuals at the expense of the State. It wouldn't make any sense for this amendment to be the only one that is talking about empowering the State by making sure its military has guns.Check out the Preamble:

quote:

---

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

---

This wasn't about identifying the powers of the Government, it was about limiting the Government in favor of the individual. And that's what the 2nd amendment does.

Ahem:

quote:

---

Comparing them as equal is insulting the intelligence of everyone in this debate. Except of course yourself and Faith.

---

Please, just stop trolling me.

Persecution complex much?Meaning you are not insulting your own intelligence or Faiths. Because you have the same arguments.How do you take that as an attack on you? The purpose of was to show that you and her are arguing against everyone else.Again you are just looking for a fight.Edited by Theodoric, : spelling , punct and clairification

The provision actually impled that the citizenry be armed by the state. Basically the state was required to train, provide boots and ammo, and administer the militia while the union was not in wartime.As long as the militia was well-maintained there was a prohibition for the union to absolve the militia.It is more than the right to own arms. It is about the right to participate in a collective army even in peacetime and to have access to training and equipment.In turn, the expectation in the transaction of providing training and weapons is that those resources can be called upon when needed.

How do you know that?

I withdraw the statement that the current Supreme Court must take the entire statement as a whole, as you have definitely shown that was an incorrect interpretation, except with regards on how to read sentences. Now, I want to mention this portion however: This portion of the Bill of Rights, namely the second amendment, was far more based on the distrust that the framers of the Constitution felt for a standing army. This is why they would have preferred to allow the civilians (who were in many cases forced to defend themselves from Indians, the French, and others) to own their own weapons. There are many reasons behind this:1. They could limit the amount of individuals who were ready at all times for war, in other words a standing army during peaceful times. Just as you stated, similar to the British Bill of Rights from 1689. That stated, "That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law." The people of this time feared standing armies, and little wonder. All one needs do is look to how the full-time soldiers from many third world (and not going to lie, some first world soldiers) countries treat those they come in contact with.2. The cost of the standing army they did keep could be kept minimal because the citizens who would be conscripted would have paid for their arms for themselves. The government can pass the buck on to the citizenry and still have a reasonable means of defense at hand.3. About your argument that: According to Constitutional Historian, Saul Cornell, "During colonial times, it was an obligation to bear arms and according to Cornell, the first draft of the constitutional amendment even instructed citizens on which types of guns to carry. Thus, the irony according to Cornell, is that while staunch gun-rights advocates insist that the right to bear arms is about protecting oneself from the government, the entire Second Amendment is, at its core, all about government telling us what to do. SourceSo, it was not intended by the framers to be an individual right, but rather a collective right, or "the right of state governments to form their own militias". It was not twisted into what it has been recently used to defend until the gun rights advocates got their hands upon it.Finally, as a firearm would constitute "property", it is within the Federal Government's rights to regulate and, in very certain circumstances, seize the property in question. According to Cornell again, "Law dictates that within reason, all property is subject to such regulation."So, regulations, registrations, required safes...all would pass the constitutionality test and this is the center of my argument. I am not for confiscation, but I am also not a crazy person who feels that registration always leads to confiscation.Say our country is invaded, would you rather the Government knew which citizens to turn to in order to ask for help and get people organized or would you rather government has to ask everyone around for help and waste time figuring out who can help and who cannot? Personally, in the unlikely invasion scenario that gun proponents always toss out there, I would prefer that the government can locate every able bodied, gun-toting citizen that would want to help repel the invaders. They can then be quickly organizaed into groups and plans can be made for defense.

"of the people" is a prepositional phrase, not the subject.The subject of the 2nd amendment literally is "a militia."Reduced to its most redimentary form, the second amendment would read "A militia shall be."Further modification reads "A militia shall not be infringed." "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed""A well regulated militia being necessary, the right shall not be infringed.'Finally, adding the prepositional modifers to "the right" and "being necessary" gives us the full scope of what is meant by "a militia shall be," namely: for security of the state, the ability to keep and bear arms.""Keep and bear aarms" as I already explained is slang for military service.Such duty should and does come with the privelige of being able to put such training and weapons to private use.I don't think it is right to pin the issue in the false dichotomy of whether the 2nd amendment applies as an individual right or a collective right. The direct implication of collective rights cannot preclude individual rights. There are no collective rights without the individual right to actively pursue collective endeavors.

It's legally documented.

By that reasoning you could justify absolutely anything, and no doubt do. If the founders' reasoning means nothing, hey, sure, take away our guns because YOU want to, the rest of us don't count, the founders don't count, you make the rules.