NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been several threads debating the intent and present usefulness of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Article [II.]
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.


As you can see, there is a phrase dealing with a "well regulated Militia". It is generally accepted that this Militia is the National Guard, as put forth in the writing of the 1916 National Defense Act. Therefore, opponents of private gun ownership have stated that the private ownership of firearms have nothing to do with a Militia, and is not protected by the Constitution.



BUT...

According to Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, § 311 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html) of the United States Code, there are accually TWO types of Militia.

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

According to the present United States code, males ages 17-45 are theoreticly part of the Unorganized Militia. Therefore, it is possible to say that the age group mentioned above have a possible Constitutional Right for private gun ownership.

Of course, this begs the question, " what exactly defines 'well regulated'?" This whole can of worms is VERY arguable.


Just some food for thought!

(This post was written by a centrist, as determined by the political compass. I am not supportive nor an opponent of gun ownership. I have no opinion!)

I think that the 2nd Amendment is taken out of context for the most part, but I do think that gun ownership rights are just an extention of our basic rights.

I personally don't agree with the need of gun ownership for protection, but I do believe that gun ownership is a personal choice that should be allowed.

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.

That's the important part, and that is the actual right. It does not say "the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms". If you decide that "people" here only refers to a specific type of person, you'd better examine the word "people" every time it appears in any amendment.

I am officially not touching this. Not even with a 10-foot pole.

I'm sure some will be relieved not to hear my legalistic preaching.

I am officially not touching this. Not even with a 10-foot pole.

I'm sure some will be relieved not to hear my legalistic preaching.
Do you argue that it's a collectivist right? Cause if you do I'd like to see you refute this (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html). If you're not of the collectivist crowd, you can disregard it.

I don't understand why the writers of the constitution would add such a specific right like gun ownership in the bill of rights. It doesn't make sense.

Now it does make sense that they would provide the people with the means to protect themselves from government, but that hardly seems applicable today.

I don't understand why the writers of the constitution would add such a specific right like gun ownership in the bill of rights. It doesn't make sense.
If you know the politics of the time it does. Basically they had seen what happened in Britain with the gun laws. The only ones who could own guns were those who were landed and had enough land to hunt on. They wanted to stop that kind of regulation in it's tracks.

I don't understand why the writers of the constitution would add such a specific right like gun ownership in the bill of rights. It doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure what makes the right to bear arms more specific than, say, the right of trial by jury.

Article [II.]

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.


Of the people. Key phrase. The National Guard is a government agency. In fact, it trains, is housed, is equiped, and is regulated all by the federal government. Is that really a citizens' militia?

I'm not sure what makes the right to bear arms more specific than, say, the right of trial by jury.

Trial by jury is far more prevalent amongst the interaction of citizens and the regulation of society than gun ownership rights.

Looks to me like the Constitution needs some extra clarification.

Don't ask me what they were thinking when they wrote "well-regulated". Could mean that they don't want people having artillery. It could also mean that they just want people armed with pistols.

Bump

Looks to me like the Constitution needs some extra clarification.

Don't ask me what they were thinking when they wrote "well-regulated". Could mean that they don't want people having artillery. It could also mean that they just want people armed with pistols.
Well, the thought of a private citizen owning a battery was kind of laughable in that day. It's very possible today, luckily some laws have been set down to make sure the Michigan Militia (not a real militia in the sense of the constitution) isn't in posession of a nuclear weapon.

As for giving the right to bear arms, it was one of those period-specific things. I put it in perspective of the Third Amendment, which today makes little if any sense to normal citizens.

First of all, the term is "well regulated" not "organized".

From what I can tell, firearms are pretty well regulated in the US, so that clause is fulfilled. Nobody, not even the NRA, wants them de-regulated.

Something fundie necons and hippie liberals can agree on: Regulation is often a good thing.

Second of all,

http://plaguesplace.dyndns.org/worm3rd/antimouth/antm6.jpg

Meh, the way I have felt about firearms is that they should be legal (especially in the US, think of the havoc it would cause it they were banned).
But I have always found it hard to believe that owning a gun should be a right. But that's just me and my two pence.

The whole "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part should be read as an if clause as it represents the assumptions behind the words. As a militia is now not even helpful, let alone necessary, the right does not exist. Period.

The whole "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part should be read as an if clause as it represents the assumptions behind the words. As a militia is now not even helpful, let alone necessary, the right does not exist. Period.

That's a nice opinion. It's always so convienient how the second part is completely ignored to justify removing rights. How do you feel about the FEC attempting to shut down bloggers? They're not necessary.

1.It is generally accepted that this Militia is the National Guard, as put forth in the writing of the 1916 National Defense Act. Therefore, opponents of private gun ownership have stated that the private ownership of firearms have nothing to do with a Militia, and is not protected by the Constitution.

2. Of course, this begs the question, " what exactly defines 'well regulated'?"




1. Just whom is it 'generally recognized" by? Groups like HCI? Senators like Diane "turn them all in" Fienstein? So an Amendment written in the late 1700's referred to an organization established over 100 years LATER?

2.That is exactly the type of arguement used by Anti-rights activists to whittle away at Law-Abiding Citizens.

I don't understand why the writers of the constitution would add such a specific right like gun ownership in the bill of rights. It doesn't make sense.

Now it does make sense that they would provide the people with the means to protect themselves from government, but that hardly seems applicable today.

What about having the ability to "call" the "People" to Arms and needing them to "show up" already armed with viable weapons of the day don't you understand?

Regards,
Gaar

The whole "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part should be read as an if clause as it represents the assumptions behind the words. As a militia is now not even helpful, let alone necessary, the right does not exist. Period.

You are entitled to your OPINION but I would beg to differ with it...

Regards,
Gaar

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.
As indicated by the part bolded there, it says "the right of the people," not the right of the militia.

This is why I'd allow gun ownership, even though I'm really not the type of person who'd own a gun (maybe a Gundam, but that's technologically impossible right now)

The whole "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part should be read as an if clause as it represents the assumptions behind the words. As a militia is now not even helpful, let alone necessary, the right does not exist. Period.


Period? Oh, well, that settles it. Argument over. Thanks, VR for setting us all straight.

You were so perfect,you didn't even have to back up or validate your argument. Boy, am I glad you were here to settle us silly people right.

The whole "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part should be read as an if clause as it represents the assumptions behind the words. As a militia is now not even helpful, let alone necessary, the right does not exist. Period.
So, basically, your argument is:

A --> B
~A
--------
~B

Brilliant!

The whole "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part should be read as an if clause as it represents the assumptions behind the words. As a militia is now not even helpful, let alone necessary, the right does not exist. Period.


Interesting that you comepleatly ignored more than half of my post.

Just because you think it is unnessesary doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. Besides, the Militia DOES exist, as I said in my post.

Oh, and BUMP.

Meh, the way I have felt about firearms is that they should be legal (especially in the US, think of the havoc it would cause it they were banned).
But I have always found it hard to believe that owning a gun should be a right. But that's just me and my two pence.

the reason they put it in the constitution is to make sure that no tyrannical figure could take over and just casually remove the right, fortunately the constitution is hard to change and the dictator F. Roosevelt died before he could get his socialist wish.

any liberal trying to take my guns away shall be fired at! YEEHAW!

any liberal trying to take my guns away shall be fired at! YEEHAW!
So I guess you've singled out a lot of NS then? Hope you've got enough bullets :)

(btw tho I don't own a gun, I'm against gun control)

What about having the ability to "call" the "People" to Arms and needing them to "show up" already armed with viable weapons of the day don't you understand?

Regards,
Gaar

You are almost as condescending as AnarchyeL.

Now it does make sense that they would provide the people with the means to protect themselves from government, but that hardly seems applicable today.

As you can see, I stated that it was the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people with the opportunity to defend themselves free from the government.

That, however, does not apply, as it is entirely unfeasible for the people to arm themselves with viable weapons.

So I guess you've singled out a lot of NS then? Hope you've got enough bullets :)

(btw tho I don't own a gun, I'm against gun control)

don't worry champ, ammo is cheap :p

:sniper:

I am officially not touching this. Not even with a 10-foot pole.

I'm sure some will be relieved not to hear my legalistic preaching.

Nor mine.

Despite the presence of plenty of case law to the contrary, I firmly believe that the framers intended the right to bear arms to be an individual right.

And I'll leave it at that. This sort of thread has been done to death.

You are almost as condescending as AnarchyeL.

As you can see, I stated that it was the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the people with the opportunity to defend themselves free from the government.

That, however, does not apply, as it is entirely unfeasible for the people to arm themselves with viable weapons.


As for condescending... How condescending do you think it is for you to tell people what they need and or don't need?

Are you saying you can see no reason we might have to protect ourselves from our Government?

I guess you haven't read the Patriot Act!

I believe we need this Right NOW more than EVER!

Regards,
Gaar

That, however, does not apply, as it is entirely unfeasible for the people to arm themselves with viable weapons.

Are you trying to say that we cannot buy weapons that are comparable or even the same as some that are used by the Military?

Again, I believe you are just plain wrong!

But then again, you have every Right to be as wrong as you would like, up until you TRY and take away a Constitutional RIGHT of MINE!

Regards,
Gaar

As for condescending... How condescending do you think it is for you to tell people what they need and or don't need?

Are you saying you can see no reason we might have to protect ourselves from our Government?

I guess you haven't read the Patriot Act!

I believe we need this Right NOW more than EVER!

Regards,
Gaar

Do you have some sort of issue with me?

I never said that I was for gun control. I just said that the original purpose of the second amendment was no longer valid. Since no one can afford to keep and arsenal of jets with smart bombs, tanks, and aircraft carriers, the only way we can protect ourselves from government is to continue regulating it through responsible democracy.

I am very much against gun control, and think that prohibiting firearms is a violations of a persons rights. But I don't like to use the second amendment to support my argument.

Do you have some sort of issue with me?

I never said that I was for gun control. I just said that the original purpose of the second amendment was no longer valid. Since no one can afford to keep and arsenal of jets with smart bombs, tanks, and aircraft carriers, the only way we can protect ourselves from government is to continue regulating it through responsible democracy.

I am very much against gun control, and think that prohibiting firearms is a violations of a persons rights. But I don't like to use the second amendment to support my argument.

Yes, I don't "buy" your argument...

No one has said they should be able to Arm themselves with EVERY weapon that the Army has, just some. Is that so hard to understand?

I'm pretty sure that not everyone in the 1800's had a Cannon at Home or a Gattling gun, even though the Military had them.

So which Amendment would you like to use? I think the Second is appropriate because it actually states what we are talking about quite emphatically, does it not?

Regards,
Gaar

I'm all for giving people rights, but the Constitution, while codifying the basic and fundamental freedoms of the American people, was meant to protect them from harm. When it was adopted, the amendment did just that. There were few established and organized police forces, and arms were required for the safety of a community. That being said, institutions have been put in place to act in that interest, and the right is no longer nessecary.

I'm all for giving people rights, but the Constitution, while codifying the basic and fundamental freedoms of the American people, was meant to protect them from harm. When it was adopted, the amendment did just that. There were few established and organized police forces, and arms were required for the safety of a community. That being said, institutions have been put in place to act in that interest, and the right is no longer nessecary.

Well, according to the Founding Fathers, it's a natural right, and exists whether or not it is in the Constitution, and whether or not there are laws forbidding it. They believed it to be as much a natural right as the freedom of speech.

Trial by jury is far more prevalent amongst the interaction of citizens and the regulation of society than gun ownership rights.

I think I just misunderstood what you meant by "specific" or something. I apologise.


Even if the "original purpose" of the Second Amendment is no longer feasible, why should that be cause for removal of the Amendment or of the right to bear arms? I understand, Vittos, that you don't advocate gun control; I'm just not quite certain as to just what you're trying to prove when you bring up the fact that citizens with handguns stand little chance of overthrowing a government with entire armies.

I'm all for giving people rights, but the Constitution, while codifying the basic and fundamental freedoms of the American people, was meant to protect them from harm. When it was adopted, the amendment did just that. There were few established and organized police forces, and arms were required for the safety of a community. That being said, institutions have been put in place to act in that interest, and the right is no longer nessecary.

Sorry, but I believe it still is pertinent with regards to protecting us from an overzealous Government...

Just as the Constitution suggests.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, I don't "buy" your argument...

No one has said they should be able to Arm themselves with EVERY weapon that the Army has, just some. Is that so hard to understand?

I'm pretty sure that not everyone in the 1800's had a Cannon at Home or a Gattling gun, even though the Military had them.

So which Amendment would you like to use? I think the Second is appropriate because it actually states what we are talking about quite emphatically, does it not?

Regards,
Gaar

If you post "Is that so hard to understand?" one more time you are going to hit the ignore list.

As for your other statements, I don't mind what weapons a person has, as long as he is shown to be responsible with them.

Comparing a rifle to a cannon is easy. Try comparing a rifle to an Abrams tank. See how many Apache helicopters you can shoot down with a shotgun.

It would be impossible for a group of citizens to protect themselves fromt he US government, therefore the second amendment is obsolete. However, for supporting gun rights, I think the general purpose of the Bill of Rights supports gun rights, the 9th Amendment is also good to use, and even the 10th amendment might be used.

I'm all for giving people rights, but the Constitution, while codifying the basic and fundamental freedoms of the American people, was meant to protect them from harm. When it was adopted, the amendment did just that. There were few established and organized police forces, and arms were required for the safety of a community. That being said, institutions have been put in place to act in that interest, and the right is no longer nessecary.

I beg to differ. The police are by no means quick to answer to a crime in progress, they usually arrive atleast 5-40 minutes afterwords. Whatever was done is done by then. Personally, sence it is this way I will make sure I have the upper hand against the criminal.

I'm all for giving people rights, but the Constitution, while codifying the basic and fundamental freedoms of the American people, was meant to protect them from harm. When it was adopted, the amendment did just that. There were few established and organized police forces, and arms were required for the safety of a community. That being said, institutions have been put in place to act in that interest, and the right is no longer nessecary.

So if an armed burglar breaks into your house, you expect the cops to be able to protect you...?

Having a gun (or some other effective weapon, like maybe poison darts or something.. hehe) around is really the only way to protect yourself from miscreants, should they choose you or your home.

I mean even if you're a black belt in jujitsu (or other martial art), if someone brings a gun into your house you're at a disadvantage.

I think I just misunderstood what you meant by "specific" or something. I apologise.


Even if the "original purpose" of the Second Amendment is no longer feasible, why should that be cause for removal of the Amendment or of the right to bear arms? I understand, Vittos, that you don't advocate gun control; I'm just not quite certain as to just what you're trying to prove when you bring up the fact that citizens with handguns stand little chance of overthrowing a government with entire armies.

I really don't care what happens to the 2nd Amendment, I guess it should be left just to keep the initial thought process it represented.

I just don't think that people should use the 2nd Amendment as an argument for gun rights. People do not want to own guns to protect themselves from government, they want to own guns because they enjoy guns and it should be their own personal decision whether they own one.

If you post "Is that so hard to understand?" one more time you are going to hit the ignore list.

As for your other statements, I don't mind what weapons a person has, as long as he is shown to be responsible with them.

Comparing a rifle to a cannon is easy. Try comparing a rifle to an Abrams tank. See how many Apache helicopters you can shoot down with a shotgun.

It would be impossible for a group of citizens to protect themselves fromt he US government, therefore the second amendment is obsolete. However, for supporting gun rights, I think the general purpose of the Bill of Rights supports gun rights, the 9th Amendment is also good to use, and even the 10th amendment might be used.

Why make a comparison? They use rifles in the Military NOW, don't they?

And I will gladly stand at one end of a Football field with my Gattling gun and you can have your Rifle and we will see who has the advantage.

And while I will say it would be very difficult to protect against the U.S. Military I will NOT say that it would be entirely impossible. But you are free to have any OPINION you like, just as I am...

And how a statement like "A citizens Right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" can become "obsolete", in your mind, completely amazes me.

Regards,
Gaar

If you post "Is that so hard to understand?" one more time you are going to hit the ignore list.

Please feel free...

But don't think for one second that that action will keep me from responding to your posts.

Regards,
Gaar

I really don't care what happens to the 2nd Amendment, I guess it should be left just to keep the initial thought process it represented.

I just don't think that people should use the 2nd Amendment as an argument for gun rights. People do not want to own guns to protect themselves from government, they want to own guns because they enjoy guns and it should be their own personal decision whether they own one.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I'm not entirely sure as to why the second amendment can't/shouldn't be used for gun rights, though. While the original purpose for stating that right may be obsolete, the right itself is not dependant upon that purpose. The second amendment can stand perfectly well as "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That right there is the entire right itself, so I don't see why the 2nd amendment should not be used to defend the right it states explicitly.

Nor mine.

Despite the presence of plenty of case law to the contrary, I firmly believe that the framers intended the right to bear arms to be an individual right.

And I'll leave it at that. This sort of thread has been done to death.
Actually, there's plenty of case law that makes it an individual right.

go here (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html) and here (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm#N_79_).

I really don't care what happens to the 2nd Amendment, I guess it should be left just to keep the initial thought process it represented.

I just don't think that people should use the 2nd Amendment as an argument for gun rights. People do not want to own guns to protect themselves from government, they want to own guns because they enjoy guns and it should be their own personal decision whether they own one.

The problem is that when discussing the individual right to bear arms (something the founders favored for more reasons than being able to resist tyranny - they were a big self-defense crowd as well), the founders used the same language that you see in the 2nd Amendment. Jefferson was even in favor of the individual right because he liked walking around with one all the time.

I wouldn't use it as an argument for a modern militia to resist tyranny.

I would, however, argue that the intent of the framers was to establish an individual right. Because they say it was a natural right, like the freedom of speech. A right that exists regardless of the laws passed against it.

And I don't care how much case law says "militia" is what it meant.

While the original purpose for stating that right may be obsolete, the right itself is not dependant upon that purpose.
Actually, contrary to what Vittos said, if the general population doesn't want you controlling their country you ain't going to control it, especially if they have simple small arms. If only 10% of the population of Iraq actively worked to drive the US out we would be screwed. Up that to the approximate third of the US population that owns guns legally and any truly tyrannical force would be screwed unless they were willing to kill everyone.

Actually, contrary to what Vittos said, if the general population doesn't want you controlling their country you ain't going to control it, especially if they have simple small arms. If only 10% of the population of Iraq actively worked to drive the US out we would be screwed. Up that to the approximate third of the US population that owns guns legally and any truly tyrannical force would be screwed unless they were willing to kill everyone.

I'm ceding that point to Vittos, to be honest. I want to see why the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be used to defend the right to bear arms even if that first bit about Militia and such is removed from the picture.

Why make a comparison? They use rifles in the Military NOW, don't they?

And I will gladly stand at one end of a Football field with my Gattling gun and you can have your Rifle and we will see who has the advantage.

Individual matchups are not what I am referring to. Suppose you and those around you, lets say your town of 5000 people has justification to resist the government. Now what do you need to put down the rebellion with 18th century weaponry? A couple thousand men and a artillery battalion. Now with modern weaponry, all that you need is one flight crew, a B-52, and about 100 troops and in one day the rebellion is over.

And while I will say it would be very difficult to protect against the U.S. Military I will NOT say that it would be entirely impossible. But you are free to have any OPINION you like, just as I am...

And how a statement like "A citizens Right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" can become "obsolete", in your mind, completely amazes me.

Regards,
Gaar

If a majority of the population resisted the government the government would have a difficult time suppressing them. However, due to our democracy, a majority of the population would never have to oppose the government.

And I said that the initial sentiments of the statement, which you took out of context, is obsolete.

If a majority of the population resisted the government the government would have a difficult time suppressing them. However, due to our democracy, a majority of the population would never have to oppose the government.

The 2nd amendment is there to basically give carte blanche if and when our system of government does break down. If it never does that option won't be needed, but if it does, that option is there.

Comparing a rifle to a cannon is easy. Try comparing a rifle to an Abrams tank. See how many Apache helicopters you can shoot down with a shotgun.
How are our helicopters and tanks in Iraq being blown up then? With no organized army left? You can shoot down a helicopter with an RPG, you can penetrate tank armor with a rifle. Besides, if you know how the English language works, you'll notice that the wording of the 2nd Amendment makes the militia a dependent clause, and the right to gun ownership independent. The gun ownership can stand without the militia, not the other way around.

The problem is that when discussing the individual right to bear arms (something the founders favored for more reasons than being able to resist tyranny - they were a big self-defense crowd as well), the founders used the same language that you see in the 2nd Amendment. Jefferson was even in favor of the individual right because he liked walking around with one all the time.

I wouldn't use it as an argument for a modern militia to resist tyranny.

I would, however, argue that the intent of the framers was to establish an individual right. Because they say it was a natural right, like the freedom of speech. A right that exists regardless of the laws passed against it.

And I don't care how much case law says "militia" is what it meant.

I mostly agree with you.

If we use the 2nd Amendment to argue for gun ownership rights, we end up in a precarious position if the accepted meaning of that amendment no longer supports gun ownership.

The 2nd amendment is there to basically give carte blanche if and when our system of government does break down. If it never does that option won't be needed, but if it does, that option is there.

I would say that the 2nd Amendment will be thrown out long before the system breaks down. And that is unfortunate.

I would say that the 2nd Amendment will be thrown out long before the system breaks down. And that is unfortunate.
There is no way to "throw out" the second amendment. 80 million people will never give up their guns.

How are our helicopters and tanks in Iraq being blown up then? With no organized army left? You can shoot down a helicopter with an RPG, you can penetrate tank armor with a rifle. Besides, if you know how the English language works, you'll notice that the wording of the 2nd Amendment makes the militia a dependent clause, and the right to gun ownership independent. The gun ownership can stand without the militia, not the other way around.

Do you know very many people who own RPG's or Stingers in America?

And I have never cared much for grammar, and do not follow it too closely, but I do know that the 2nd Amendment expressly defends the right to bear arms. I also know that the only justification that they give for that is the need to protect a free state. If people begin to think that is no longer necessary to protect the free state from the government, then they could throw out the amendment, and that would take out the basis for most gun rights advocates.

There is no way to "throw out" the second amendment. 80 million people will never give up their guns.

Many societies have been lulled into giving up their guns before. If we keep allowing for the father government image to expand, with the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, and War on Terror, the people may be fooled into thinking that the government is actually looking out for them.

Do you know very many people who own RPG's or Stingers in America?

And I have never cared much for grammar, and do not follow it too closely, but I do know that the 2nd Amendment expressly defends the right to bear arms. I also know that the only justification that they give for that is the need to protect a free state. If people begin to think that is no longer necessary to protect the free state from the government, then they could throw out the amendment, and that would take out the basis for most gun rights advocates.
Actually, I know four, and they all live in the mountains of Virginia. The perfect place to fight off tanks. But's that's besides the point. The fact remains that RPG's aren't that hard to assemble from scratch, and neither are IED's.

True, that is the only justification given, but the right is not contigent on the justification. For example, if your parents tell you to clean your room, they may say it's because they said so. True they want you to do it to learn responsibility, improve the cleanliness of the house, and possibly improve your health, but they don't give every reason. They give one.

Actually, I know four, and they all live in the mountains of Virginia. The perfect place to fight off tanks. But's that's besides the point. The fact remains that RPG's aren't that hard to assemble from scratch, and neither are IED's.

Well at least when you need to stage a rebellion you should be able to last for a month or two. Just remember that the Federal Government has shown a willingness to sacrifice quite a bit to preserve the Union.

True, that is the only justification given, but the right is not contigent on the justification. For example, if your parents tell you to clean your room, they may say it's because they said so. True they want you to do it to learn responsibility, improve the cleanliness of the house, and possibly improve your health, but they don't give every reason. They give one.

I am willing to agree with you on that, but what happens if that interpretation is not widely accepted by the government or the populace? The 2nd Amendment is a very shaky basis for the gun rights argument.

I am willing to agree with you on that, but what happens if that interpretation is not widely accepted by the government or the populace? The 2nd Amendment is a very shaky basis for the gun rights argument.
The interpretation does not change the reality. The reality is that in the English language, the right to bear arms is independent of anything. It is a self-existent right. The right to a militia is contigent on gun ownership.

Actually, there's plenty of case law that makes it an individual right.

go here (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html) and here (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm#N_79_).

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Did you read these before linking them and claiming there was plenty of case law interpreting the Second Amendment to protect an individual right?

I'm locking myself back up in my quiet place now. Serenity now. Serenity now.