A debate on a Supreme Court Case

"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. '" That lists the end. Basically, because state regulated militias are good, we need gun rights. Further proof needed? Uhh. .. how about the fact that the earliest commentator on the Constitution, a personal friend of both James Madison, the author of the amendment, and Thomas Jefferson, wrote in 1803 that it conferred an individual right to bear and keep arms. "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:" The militias of that time were operating separate from the government, because it was the government they were fighting against. They were not state militias. Anyways, it is the right of the people to have arms, so just because it is to aid the formation of militias, people may still keep and bear arms. The definition of militia is not important. "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. " I mean just the history part, it explains the common law background for the second amendment, the founder's views and commentators views. That gives us a clear view of the meaning of the second amendment. For example, the article said that NO ONE suggested that it conferred a collective right, not an individual one until the late nineteenth century. Yeah, it looks like the founders pretty clearly meant an individual right. Also, they weren't writing it to be confusing, they were writing the way people talked. "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. " DC is not a state, so it can't regulate its militia, but people can still have weapons. Also, like I said, the amendment clearly confers an individual right. States can regulate what is actually used in the militias, but nonetheless, people can keep whatever weapon they want. "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? " I used common sense. In the minute it takes to disengage, all sorts of bad things could happen. "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. " The preamble of the Constitution explains the purpose of the Constitution, yet it is not of legal bearing. You can't sue the government for not securing the blessings of liberty for you and your posterity, now can you? "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. " They were momentary muscle spasms. Anyways, if you have three of the same amendments, you only need to pass one. The fact that two were rejected means nothing. "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. " But the handgun is the most convenient gun on the market, banning it violates the people's right. I mean seriously, do you want to make room for proper storage of a bulky rifle, or for a compact handgun?