Summations Only

No it doesn't. Because we aren't arguing about my belief and I have no desire to argue about my belief.We are discussing what the Constitution says and what the beliefs were of the people behind the Second Amendment.

Again I ask.
Do you have any reference to support your belief that this is a correct reading of the Constitution?
If not then there is no point in discussing this issue with you any more, because all I have to say is you are wrong and we are at a standstill.

Leaving aside the literacy criticism of the constitution and various amendments. Suppose the American people came to their senses and decided to abolish this 'right' right to own guns, how would it be achieved? Do you guys ever have referendums? (Referenda?)

Since the question is embodied in the Constitution any change would require an amendment to the Constitution itself. Article V spells out the amendment procedures.Two-thirds of each of the Senate and the House of Representatives must approve the amendment then submit it to the states for ratification. Then three-fourths of the states must ratify the amendment before it can become operative.There are variations on how the states can ratify the amendment required by the congress. Congress can direct that ratification be by the states' legislatures or by state-sponsored ratifying conventions.There is also a work around if congress refuses to act. Two-thirds of the states can force Congress to call a National Constitutional Convention to consider amendments. The convention can then submit, by two-thirds vote, any amendment to the states for the ratification process as above.The amendment process is thus long and drawn out. Very difficult to amend the US Constitution since super-majorities must agree at each step in the process.Unless there is a concerted sea-change that swells the entire nation for more than just a few years the Second Amendment will remain law.

I looked at the Heller Ruling to help me understand the Supreme Court's reasoning in ignoring the "well regulated militia" portion of the Second Amendment. What they're doing is obvious right on page one:

quote:

---

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.

​

(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.

---

So though the purpose of the Amendment is to help maintain a "well regulated militia," the Supreme Court maintains that that purpose has no bearing on what it calls the "operative clause" about the right to "keep and bear arms."What if I said to my children, "Since getting to and from school and the library is essential to your education, I shall not infringe upon your right to own and operate motor vehicles." Did I just give my kids the right to drive their cars wherever and whenever they want? The Supreme Court sure thinks so.We need a new and very clear amendment. All it needs to say is, "You can't just have guns willy-nilly, they're dangerous."--Percy

Oh the irony!Both you and Cat Sci evaded most of my points. Maybe you could start by giving the example if you want people to give you the same respect.

My position has not changed. The Constitution, the way it is written, the things that is says, the words that it uses, how it speaks, it talks of the rights it mentions as being natural ones that already exist and not legal ones that it is granting.

The constitution cannot be amended by referendum.

No one expects you to change your mind about natural rights. At least not until you need to argue some other position in some other discussion.But your arguments have been shown to lead to ridiculous results.

Where does it say "we grant the right" anywhere in the Constitution? It was understood that rights are granted by the government of the day, which is governed by the Constitution. Exactly. It's mentioned ONLY in the context of a well-regulated militia. It is clear from the text that the right to be armed is directly attached to a well-regulated militia. The only "pre-existing right" is the security of a free state.Edited by ringo, : Missspelled "a".

Whether the right to keep and bear arms is a "natural right" or not I'm not sure, but it is certainly clear that the right is described as pre-existing the Constitution, and I don't get why this is being argued at such tedious length, The phrasing is that this right "shall not be abridged." Sure sounds to me like we're talking about a right that is already assumed to be given, that is being protected by the Second Amendment rather than granted by it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How does a right exist without a governmental structure?

Cat Sci, Jon and Faith are arguing that this:

quote:

---

"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."

---

Means precisely the same thing as this:

quote:

---

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

---

I can't see how that is possible or makes any sense.--Percy

Given by whom? The Constitution is square one.

They also are saying that this right preexists a governmental structure. They seem to be claiming that people that live in countries without any right to bear arms actually do have a right to own guns.Or do they think only us 'mericans have this special pre-constitutional right?