Addressing me won't provide you with what you want since it is the OP that posted that fallacy and I am under no obligation whatsoever to address it no matter how obsessed you might be with the content of my posts.
Was that enough "original source material" to prove that the people who "keep and bear Arms" relates to only those in a "well regulated Militia" and not the general public?
I asked for original source material that supports your claim.. You did not deliver. I suspect you know you cannot.
There is over one hundred footnotes of "source material" in the paper and you are attempting to avoid the issue he proves in that those who bear arms are members of a militia and not the public.
The paper brings into question in an authoritative way some of your fundamental beliefs and I can understand why you avoid addressing the issue.
So when the state of Pennsylvania wrote this in their Constitution, they weren't referring to a non-militia right? "Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21). 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII." Is self defense a militia only task? Rhode Island missed the militia link: Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state - 1819 Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17) Indiana: 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20. There were an awful lot of state legislatures that seem to think that the right to bear arms was an individual right. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
I'm sorry you do not like the fact you are fully aware of the fact you cannot any original source material to support your position - but there's nothing I can do about that. When you claim an intent to an action, you need to show that intent with the words - the actual words - of the people who took that action. You cannot. You fail.
https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/...ue3/Kozuskanich10U.Pa.J.Const.L.413(200.pdf By dodging the issue the paper brings up you fail.
By ignoring that no federal law was ever passed to prevent the keeping and bearing of arms, you fail. From your paper: "In Pennsylvania, the only province that lacked a state-sanctioned militia and whose frontier was hard hit during the French and Indian War, bearing arms had an undeniable military meaning." Yet the Pennsylvania constitution specifically differentiates the bearing of arms for militia purposes and for individual purposes. Your source further claims as support "Hunting was carefully regulated by the state, and Pennsylvania's "Act to prevent the Killing of Deer out of Season" forbade any person "to carry any Gun or hunt on any improved or enclosed Lands" without the permission of the owner, or face a ten shilling fine". This isn't a gun rights issue - it's a property rights issue. The limitation was only upon lands with an owner, and the purpose was to regulate the killing of deer out of season. Your biggest failure is that the purpose of the Bill of Rights in its entirety was solely to limit the powers of the federal government; states possessed the powers to restrict arms, at least until the 14th amendment or Chicago vs McDonald, whichever you prefer. Under the Constitution, the Congress had complete control over the organization, arms and discipline of the militia - it is impossible for the 2nd Amendment to protect the arms of the militia in order to provide for the security of a free state. If Congress under Article 1 Section 8 decided that the militia consisted of a score of blond men from each state, armed as Norsemen with axes and shields, that's the law. No amount of Second Amendment protections could prevent that decision.
You are fully aware of the fact you failed to meet the challenge put to you. When you think you can, post the original source material that supports your claim. Until then, your claim is unsupportable.
... to present anything support his position, save for the opinions of others. None of these opinions are founded on the words and thoughts of the people who submitted, debated and ratified the 2nd. As such, neither he nor any of the derivative works he cites can in any way speak to the intent of the 2nd.
No one has a problem with using firearms for DEFENSIVE purposes ONLY! The EXISTING problem is the OFFENSIVE use of firearms that is GROWING nationwide. Keeping firearms OUT of the hands of the mentally unbalanced would be a LOGICAL step to ending the OFFENSIVE use of firearms. Why does the NRA object to that sane and reasonable position?
The NRA does not object to dangerous individuals being denied firearms, they simply disagree with the preferred method of supposedly attempting such. So long as dangerous individuals are allowed to remain free in society, where they pose the greatest risk of harm, no legal restriction will do anything to prevent their actions. The only truly effective measure is to permanently remove known dangerous individuals from the equation all together. Either confine them to the appropriate facility for the duration of their natural lives, or execute them. Either way they no longer pose a threat to society at large. It is that simple.
Because to keep arms out of the hands of the mentally ill would require imposing unconstitutional restrictions on law abiding citizens. To prevent the criminal offensive use of firearms would require a complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. You'd have to have daily mental health checks on all gun owners. Who are the mentally unbalanced? Which mental illnesses are disqualifiers? Is everyone with a mental illness a danger to themselves or others?