The right to bear arms

So the debate boils down to these three topics: 1) Is the Constitution living or not? 2) Does the original wording of the 2nd amendment necessitate an individual right? 3) Has my opponent proven an individual right is necessary today? 1) Living Constitution Ok, let's break down my opponent's arguments bit by bit ---First, he says (roughly paraphrasing) "Supreme Court is not always right" This does nothing to support neither your or mine points because the cases I was referring to were cases clarifying the constitution. Every time any court makes a decision dealing with constitutional rights, they're reinterpreting the constitution, and thus, making the constitution "living". If the constitution was "not living", then we would not need such a complex court system. EVERY TIME A COURT MAKES A DECISION DEALING WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THEY'RE MAKING THE CONSTITUTION LIVING! ---"Brenner quote shows nothing" If a Supreme Court Justice says something, it should be valued. Scalia merely sticks to a strict constructionist view of the constitution; however, he did not say it was "dead". His personal philosophy is also very ironic, since every time he's making a decision about constitutional rights, he's making the constitution living. Underview: My Opponent makes the claim that such cases that define the constitution such as Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education are showing that the constitution is "Confusing". But where does one draw the line between Confusing and Reinterpretation? Is not clarifying the confusion essentially equal to reinterpreting the constitution? The answer is simple: They are. My opponent cannot disprove the fact that the constitution is a living entity, being changed every day by court decision. 2) Premises in a syllogism are mutually exclusive, thus, attacking premise 1 does nothing to premise 2. Although these two premises may be linked, invalidating premise 1 only makes the conclusion null; however, the living constitution is a very real thing. Furthermore, my opponent has agreed with me that THE CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED. Why you should vote for me: My opponent has essentially dropped the second premise. I believe that I have clearly demonstrated that the Constitution is living, thus my syllogism is valid and should justify a vote for me. Question 2:Does the original wording of the 2nd amendment necessitate an individual right? There are several holes in my opponent's logic. ---First he makes the extrapolation: " They have the right so that, if they wish, they can join a militia." This is the crux of my opponent's case perhaps. Does the 2nd amendment make gun rights justify a militia, or militia justify the right to own guns? Here, my opponent contradicts himself. First, he states that the ablative construction makes the militia the main reason to own guns, THEN, he makes the statement quoted above. This is an illogical leap. No where in the 2nd amendment does it imply or say gun rights justify a militia, but it says militias justify gun rights (as argued earlier). ---He then makes an analogy to the 1st amendment This is an unjust analogy. First, the 1st amendment does not only protect anti-government speech. It forbids the government from censoring anything, so your extrapolation that "most speech is protected under the first amendment" was actually WORDED into the 1st amendment. Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment is very restrictive due to the ablative construction of it, making militias justify gun rights, not gun rights justifying militas. ---Justification of an indvidiual right My opponent claims that "the PEOPLE" somehow gives EVERYONE the right to own guns. I shall make 3 arguments against it. i) The People and the Militias were indistingishable back in those days. Everyone was expected to serve in the militia in order to protect their communities. However, since the conditions have changed since then, this interpretation no longer makes sense. ii) I ask a very basic question again: WHY INCLUDE THE PHRASE DEALING WITH MILITIAS IF IT WAS MEANT TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT? iii) As stated earlier, the conditions have CHANGED, no longer are we threatened by the British or the Indians, we're now safe on the home front, thus the original justifications have now changed. Question 3: Has my opponent proven an individual right is necessary today? Simply said, he has not. He has given two reasons, both of which are inadequate, to justify this claim: 1) A Law is a Law and 2) "The People" = individual right Number 2 was rebutted earlier, and #1 was rebutted in my first premise. The Constitution changes, and the "The People"'s meanings have changed. Voting Issues, remember the burden of the proof is on the affirmative. I said repeatedly that the an individual right is not supported by the 2nd amendment due to the restrictive clause, and I believe that my opponent has not proved his point sufficiently, thus a vote for the negative is in order. Furthermore, the constitution is changing everyday, thus taking away my opponent's main arguments.