THE most significant flaw in the militia-only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is...

maybe so. but long long after you are gone

 

Well, I'll outlive you so don't worry about it.

 

Some of those can actually count to 13.

 

I am, but I don't see how that's relevant here. We were arguing that the 2nd was to deal with slave rebellions, I had thought.

 

Exactly. If they were intellectually honest they'd do exactly that. But, they know it isn't politically feasible, so they try to explain the 2nd Amendment away so they can try rationalizing just ignoring it.

 

It wasn't to deal with slave rebellions. History and the clear statements of intent on the part of the Founders and the documented debates of the time prove that with even a rudimentary reading.

 

On what do you base this opinion? Just your saying doesn't make it so

 

Except for the simple fact that it was not.

 

Thank you for the post, do you have anything to contribute to the thread? Such as a reason why you say what you're saying?

 

It was said in response to what was being said by yourself. That is generally how a debate and discussion is performed.

Regardless, there is no historical evidence, such as writing by the founing fathers, that would show the second amendment was ratified for the purpose of dealing with slave rebellions. The ratification process came after a bloody war with a foreign nation that invaded and confiscated privately owned firearms.

 

The 2nd Amendment was one article among 10 others and the Bill it was part of was debated extensively as an entirety, it is not surprising that no debate concerning any individual article was recorded

 

False. The bill of rights is made up of ten amendments, meaning each and every one of them would have been discussed individually before actually being ratified by the founding fathers.

 

Read the words the Founders themselves wrote and their statements of intent. Find me just one statement from them supporting your contention that the 2nd Amendment is somehow about "slave rebellions" during the period leading up to ratification. I'll wait.

 

"Vas you dere, Charlie?" No, I wasn't either, but I do know the whole thing was proposed in it's entirety, no doubt they were all read and considered individually, but enough to be discussed in detail? How much was written about number 7, (and just what is it anyway?)

 

The seventh amendment of the united states constitution is not being discussed presently. The matter of when a trial by jury applies is not relevant to the discussion.

 

Supreme court has discussed it plenty.

 

Indeed they have, and the most recent decision, written by a rather Conservative Justice, found that there was no problem with even rather stringent regulation of firearms, as long as people were permitted to have them.

It's only the gun advocates who want to twist that into permitting just about anything to anybody

 

No one said anything about "rather stringent" ; "useful to a militia" and "in common use for lawful purposes", yes.

 

Not bloody true.
Nobody wants prohibited people to have firearms.

Move to U.K. , very strict Gun control.

Instant fix ! Walla !

No Guns !

 

Except for the fact that the united state supreme court said nothing of the sort. It did not say anything even close to what is being claimed. Cite where it said otherwise, or recant the statement.

Merely recognizing that the right protected by the second amendment is unlimited, does not do anything to suggest that the right is next to nonexistent.

 

In Heller, read it for yourself, if you don't agree tell me what I'm missing or wrong about.

 

You want to make it very easy for them to bypass the law, which is the same thing.

 

The Heller ruling has indeed been read, and it does not say anything even remotely close to what is being claimed by yourself. There is not a single paragraph, not a single passage, that even supports the message being presented by yourself.

Heller states that the second amendment recognizes and protects an individual right to own and use legally available firearms for lawful purposes, that the right is connected to the legal concept of self defense with deadly force, and states that firearms which are in common use cannot be prohibited from legal ownership. It did not specify or otherwise suggest anything about government having authority to regulate and restrict firearms in whatever manner it saw fit.

 

So it said that firearm ownership and use could not be regulated at all?