A debate on a Supreme Court Case

Before I begin, I would like to offer a quote that I found in the wikipedia page on the 2nd amendment, and will certainly put us in good spirits for the rest of the debate. "The importance of Bliss is also seen from the defense subsequently given against a murder charge in Kentucky against Mattews Ward, who in 1852 pulled out a concealed pistol and fatally wounded his brother's teacher over an accusation regarding eating chestnuts in class. " Lets see what my opponent's been saying this go around.. He begins by re-asserting the all-truthiness of his Volokh card, which he used in his first aff. Basically, he says that the first part of the 2nd amendment was just a joke, and that only the second half really matters. I say, 'no way! You can't pick and choose parts of the Constitution to listen to!' and I use a quote from the Supreme Court to back it up. He still thinks it is correct, and so to further prove this wrong, I present a quote from US v. Miller, the last major 2nd amendment case before this one: "with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the state-regulated militias the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." It comes down to whether or not we should listen to the unanimous Supreme Court on two separate occasions, or Volokh. "Erm... no. Concord, Lexington, ever heard of them?" 1. The Revolutionary War seemed to transpire over more than two battles. 2. Well regulated militias fought in both of those battles for the Revolutionaries. The minutemen were not just dudes with guns. They were the best of the Massachusetts militia, designed to be ready in a minutes notice. I will now quote Mr. Jared Sparks, author of a book on George Washington, who explains the Massachusetts militia in depth: "They recommended to the militia to form themselves into companies of minute-men, who should be equipped and prepared to march at the shortest notice. These minute-men were to consist of one quarter of the whole militia, to be enlisted under the direction of the field-officers, and divide into companies, consisting of at least fifty men each. The privates were to choose their captains and subalterns, and these officers were to form the companies into battalions, and chose the field-officers to command the same. Hence the minute-men became a body distinct from the rest of the militia, and, by being more devoted to military exercises, they acquired skill in the use of arms. More attention than formerly was likewise bestowed on the training and drilling of militia." As you can see, these men were well-regulated, and units similar to that of these brave men were what the Founders intended to protect. My opponent continues with the idea of the authors writing the second amendment just to be confusing. He says that James Madison originally wrote it, which is true, however, it went through intense discussion in the House and Senate, which was not comprised of lawyers exclusively, or even primarily. To say that they all were ones who felt that an un-natural reading that not even most of them could understand was best is hogwash. My opponent then goes to the wikipedia page on the history of amendment number 2. Its quite a good bit to read, I'm not really sure if he expects me to read all of it, without him explaining what is relevant to this discussion at all. Until further explanation, that link should be discounted as evidence. Again onto the next point, the link is discounted. I've shown how the declaration uses the term 'to bear arms' that refers to fighting in a military sense. My opponent says that there is no basis to assume that the amendment should lead to the assumption that the states should have the power to regulate arms to be used in their militias. The basis is that only certain weapons were kosher for militia use, namely muskets and rifles. The rightfulness of certain weapons was determined in laws written by the states regarding the creation of their respective militias. My opponent states that trigger locks inhibit one's ability of self defense. The purpose of a trigger lock is to prevent an accidental firing of said weapon, leading to unintentional deaths. I can prove this with statistics. Can my opponent find proof that trigger locks have led to more people being killed or robbed? His next point regarding endangerment is refuted with my previous. My opponent continues with the idea of an un-natural reading and writing of the Constitution being the way to go. I don't understand why anything would be written in a legally binding document if it weren't designed to have affect. This would be the result of accepting my opponent's premise, basically, you can pick and choose parts of documents as you see fit. This would lead to grave consequences upon the United States and the world as a whole, another reason to reject it. "Obviously I was suffering intense muscle spasms when I wrote Thomas Jefferson. I meant James Madison, who was equally influential." If you suffered intense muscle spasms then, I would assume that all of your writing would be a symptom of such a disorder. The amendment originally provided by Mr. Madison was altered quite a bit throughout, obviously if he was Mr. influence 9000 then it would have flown through. The other amendments were rejected because Mr. Madison's was closest to correct, which proscribed that states shall be granted the right to have militias comprised of the people. My opponent says that common civil use grants it protection, while I maintain that even more common criminal use makes it legal and reasonable to ban it, as evidenced by Miller. (Toss up?)