The right to bear arms

Thank you LR4N6FTW4EVA for hosting this debate on this interesting topic. Overview: One of my main problems with the Aff's contentions is that they deal mainly with Framer's intent, which is problematic with the idea that the Constitution is "living". Furthermore, current conditions in the United States are far different than those in the 1780s, thus, the original intent of the Constitutional's Framers are no longer applicable. This question is in the sole jurisdiction of the Judicial Branch (in fact, there is a case pending in the Supreme Court that will answer this question). I will, however, debate my opponent's contentions. Contention 1: Grammer i)If the Framer's intent was for all individuals to own firearms, why did they include the first phrase dealing with Militias? The inclusion of the first phrase clearly signifies that the Framer's did intend for some sort of connection between the right to firearms and a citizen militias. Thus, it is not too far of a stretch to assume that the firearms are to be used solely for a citizen militia. ii) I don't totally get your Latin Construction argument, but I'll try my best to argue against it. You say that "Latin construction that prefaces the main clause of a sentence by stating the time, condition, or circumstances of an action being described in the main clause of the sentence ". Since the Latin construction states "the time and CONDITION" of the action described. The condition is clearly described in the first clause/phrase which states that the Condition is for a "well regulated militia". Furthermore, the Latin ablative case is often used to signify the condition by which some action should be done (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Clearly, the presence of the preceding phrase clearly shows that the preconditions for the second phrase. iii) The first draft of the second amendment clearly suggests that the right to firearms should be only given to only state militias: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (http://en.wikipedia.org..., citation 33) The phrase after the second semi-colon clearly emphasizes the fact people carrying firearms should be compelled to render military service. Furthermore, this construction flips the Latin construction found in the final second amendment. In this case, the "right to bear arms" is an ablative clause (correct me if I'm wrong) to the second phrase, which shows that the precondition to bear arms is for a well armed and well regulated militia. This version clearly shows Framer's intent better than the final draft, since it is the original version. Contention 2 Although it says the right cannot be infringed, the clear intention of the amendment is for the militia, as shown by the preceding sentence which clarifies the intention of WHO should be given the right to carry arms. Contention 3: i)Historical situation has changed, thus making this argument null and void. Framer's intent, although important, is only a part of what should be in consideration when considering conditions today. My opponent should be arguing that the historical situation still is in occurrence today in order to make this argument extendable to today's world. ii)"Lexington and Concord" – This argument does not support your point, it merely supports the fact that guns should be given to only militias, as shown by your last statement: "In the founders' time, militias were just groups of people that got together to defend themselves. The founders felt that the right to actually have weapons is necessary to form a militia.". This SHOWS NOTHING about why EVERYONE should be given the right to bear arms exclusive of the purpose of formation of militias. In fact, this supports my position that guns are necessary for militias more than the general right to bear arms. iii)"Pioneers" – one singular person supporting a specific agenda (pioneers) does not demonstrate the intention of all framers to expand right to everyone. Furthermore, the pioneers may be considered militias, since they're defending themselves against a foreign enemy. Secondly, this situation no longer applies today, so this argument cannot be used to support the right to own guns in today's world. Contention 4: i)If you're going to argue Framer's intent, I think you need citations from actual writers of the constitution instead of "commentators". Experts such as the "first commentator" or "british Jurist" shows nothing about either 1) the framer's intent or 2) the application of the second amendment today. ii) Unless these commentators can magically read minds of long dead writers, I doubt their arguments should be considered as the whole truth. iii) Just because the founding fathers admired someone did not mean they agreed with him or her in everything. Just like how the Founding Fathers admired the Locke, they changed his basic phrase "life and liberty and property" to something else. They DREW ideas from him, but did not agree IN WHOLE with everything he said. iv) An individual opinion does not show the collective intent of all the writer's of the constitution v) Did every single writer admire Blackstone? I doubt it. My opponent's emphasis on the ORIGINAL wording or FRAMER's INTENT, I feel, is not the correct way to demonstrate that the right to bear arms still existed today. I feel that the parameters clearly signify that the debate is about to right to carry ARMS TODAY, not 220 years ago. Thus, I feel that my opponent needs to demonstrate that the original wording is still APPLICABLE in today's world and give specific examples of how it is.