A debate on a Supreme Court Case

"While I agree that the first part of the clause is a prefatory statement, it is used to do just that, further explain the purpose of second part of the clause, which is to allow for the people to be a part of a State Militia. More on this to come. .. " No, it's not, there is no basis for that statement. "The Government cannot infringe upon the security of a State by taking away their right to a militia, is actually what it means; again, more to follow in my case. " What? No. You ignore the Volokh card. "hat's a militia, but not a well regulated militia, as the amendment specifies. A well regulated militia was one that included training and an organization as proscribed by the State's legislature. Heller was not a member of any well regulated State Militia when he first appealed his denial to own a handgun. " But he is a people. The amendment says people, not "states" or "militias. " The people can keep and bear arms. "This is false, citizens militias wouldn't have done anything, it would just be a bunch of dudes with guns with no idea whats going on. Anti-federalists realized this, and demanded the right for States to keep militias, militias that would abide to State and not national law. " Citizen's militias won the Revolutionary War, and besides, the people need weapons, that's why we need the Second Amendment. "I contend that it means 'to fight. [in a military sense]' Versus what my opponent asserts, which is 'to have weapons' Lets look at the Declaration of Independence, where the term is used in one of Thomas Jefferson's castigations of George III. " Ahh, but Black, the famous jurist, and publisher of Black's Law Dictionary defined "bear arms" as to have weapons, and as the framers were lawyers it is likely that this would be their legalese definition, and the one that would be used in say a law, or huh, the second amendment. A British Common Law case in 1707 definitively defined "to bear arms" as to have arms, not as to fight. As the founders used British Common Law until they established Common Law of their own, it is safe to say that this is their meaning. Also, it also said "keep. .. arms" So even under your definition, it would say "the right of the people to have weapons, and serve in a militia shall not be infringed. " "A trigger lock can be disengaged in under a minute, and also, the DC Circuit court and DC Court of Appeals have both found that exceptions can and should be granted to the general law in exceptional circumstances, as seen in the DC Court of Appeals Case Emry v. US. " And in that minute, you can be shot by the burglar. And, what's with the point about the Emry v. US case? There is no way of knowing when an "exceptional circumstance" will occur. This means that the law-abiding citizen would be screwed over by the less upright one. "Ergo, to fight in a military sense is the meaning of bearing arms. Shooting at an intrusive/tasty rabbit would not be described as bearing arms against it, so how could shooting at a person in a self-defense style be described as bearing arms as well? ' As I have shown, the founders used legal terms, and as a legal term, "bear arms" meant to have them. Also, I have shown that the first clause is prefatory. Need further proof? The phrase is the Latin ablative absolute, and if properly used, the first part is explanatory, answering why (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). As the founders were well versed in Latin, this is certainly the term they would have used. "Further proof that the 2nd Amendment is referring only to the usage of weapons in a military sense is that other amendments were proposed that did allow for the usage of weapons for personal defense, but were rejected. 'That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state. .. ' read an amendment proposed by the Pennsylvania delegation. 'that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. ' read another proposition from the Massachusetts delegation. " They only needed one amendment, so, as multiples were proposed, they chose the best. Thomas Jefferson, probably one of the most influential people at the time, wrote the Second Amendment, so he had the most clout to get his version passed. "The facts are in, handguns are particularly suited to criminal misuse, especially in the District of Columbia. There is no reason to own a handgun in the city for any other purpose than to shoot someone with, considering that it is 100% city. The Department of Justice reports while only 1/3 of the firearms owned in this nation are handguns, that Eighty-seven percent of all guns used in crime are handguns. The DC laws were enacted to prevent this. Furthermore, the DC laws allowed for people to still own and keep rifles and shotguns, shotguns especially, as described in Guns & Ammo, are more effective than handguns at stopping a home intruder. " However, handguns are the most convenient, and the Courts have ruled that a weapon in common usage by the people cannot be prohibited. 1/3 of all the guns is a pretty common usage.