U.S. Ctizens Have And Ought To Have The Right To Bear And Keep Arms

Well, Pro's latest round was certainly entertaining. It made absolutely no logical sense whatsoever, but ya can't blame a guy for trying. Mercifully, for the voters, this should be quick.Learning How To Read...The Second AmendmentNow, I really didn't want to have to post text that had already been posted, but since Pro apparently lacks the ability to effectively read single sentences when they are in a non-standard sentence structure, I feel that I must break down and re-post the text of the 2nd Amendment.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.OR, to put it in a more standard format that Pro can understand:The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [upon, because] it is necessary to the security of a free state [to have] a well regulated militia. Now, as I'm sure Pro will be dying to point out after he reads my juxtaposed version of the 2nd Amendment, I am well aware the word, "because", doesn't exist in the original text, but it is obviously implied, much like when someone exclaims, "Sit Down!", there is a [You] implied.This is what we in the biz call, "sub-text", and while it is nuanced and difficult for the uninitiated to the language we call "English" to detect, it is there nonetheless, and just because this very obvious fact has escaped Pro's ability to comprehend, doesn't make it any less real.Now, as I have already stated, when interpreting contracts, the INTENT of that contract is paramount to determining the outcome of any dispute. Since the intent here is quite obvious (see my previous round re: Madison's further writings in Federalist #46 for more information), and since it is impossible to fulfill the stated purpose of the amendment, the means with which to fulfill that purpose also no longer apply.To state it more simply, I will use an example I just used to explain this concept to another person. Just for fun, let write it in the style of the Second Amendment.A healthy ficus, being necessary to the stability of my marriage, the rights of Pro to enter my home shall not be infringed.Obviously, the only reason I am allowing Pro to enter my home, in this case, is for the purpose of watering my ficus plant (because I am much too lazy to do it myself). And, sure, I have added no provision that states Pro can't drink the beer out of my fridge, or sit down and enjoy my giant-screen TV from the comfort of my Barcalounger, but he damn well better water that stupid ficus, because that's the only reason I've given him unfettered access to my home in the first place, and that fact is quite obvious from our contract, but even if it weren't, I've written several blog posts on Wordpress.com which explain all of this, and I know that Pro has read them (like Madison's Federalist Papers).Fast forward to 3 years from now. My wife left me, and she took the ficus with her. Does it make sense to anyone reading this why Con should still have unrestricted access to my home?Then, since we no longer have the ability to form state militias in this country, why in the hell would any rational person think that gun rights should be retained?A State's Authority Over A MilitiaI am well aware that recently the states' ability to form and control their own militias has been completely compromised by the US Federal Government, but that has not always been the case, and it truly shouldn't be the case today. For authority, let's take a peek into the Indiana State Constitution, Article 12 (shout out to Chuz-Life):Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law. (History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974). Section 2. The Governor is Commander-in-Chief of the militia and other military forces of this state. (History: As Amended November 5, 1974). Section 3. There shall be an Adjutant General, who shall be appointed by the Governor. (History: As Amended November 5, 1974). Section 4. No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia. (History: As Amended November 5, 1974).Well, geez. I have no idea where Pro got the idea that states haven't had "much authority over militias" since the ratification of the Constitution. Or, perhaps someone simply failed to relay this information to the people who wrote the Constitution for the Great State of Indiana.More Information About How To Read...The ConstitutionArticle 1, Section 8 of The United States Constitution outlines and enumerates ALL powers of the legislature. What Pro failed to do with his out of context quote of this section was to note the powers enumerated just before the one he pulled out (again, of context):To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; The intent of that provision is obviously only applicable to war time and any time in which the Federal Government should declare Marshall Law, and anyone who reads it in context should be intelligent enough to understand that. If You Don't Stand For Something, You'll Fall For Anything A standing army is actually NOT allowed by the Constitution, and here's why (going back to Pro's beloved Article 1, Section 8): To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; First of all, note the word, "Armies". It's not "ARMY", it's "Armies". The reason for this is because an army is supposed to be specific to a war (see my previous round re: Federalist #41). Thus, should we engage in multiple wars, we would, at that time, have multiple armies (or, multiple wars over the course of our entire history as a country, which any country, even of the size ours was at the time the Constitution was written, would). Once a war is over, the army used in that war is supposed to be disbanded. I know this, because I know the definition of the word "appropriation". The root of "appropriation" is proper. Proper means, "for an occasion". Once that occasion (a war, in this instance) ends, one may no longer appropriate funds to an army, because by definition, one is misappropriating funds to that army. (again, Madison explains this in Federalist #41, and since he wrote the 2nd Amendment, I think he knows what he meant when he wrote it...again - INTENT). I am, once again, filled with sorrow that my opponent doesn't comprehend the English language, but, also once again, that doesn't make the meaning of the words any different than they are simply because he fails to understand them, and fails to understand them in context. Conclusion I am not even bothering to address the remainder of Pro's arguments, because they are fallacies, straw man, or restatements of previous fallacies and straw man. It should be obvious to anyone reading this, who is also in possession of half a brain (a quarter, even), that the purpose behind why the rights in the Second Amendment were granted to the people of the United States is no longer achievable. Therefore, the right itself is not only no longer necessary to have, and it should also either be immediately revoked, or comprehensively amended to account for the fact we have taken a complete 180 from the intended national security provisions of our country's origins. Sources 5th Grade English Class (word up, Mrs. Fieldler) The US Constitution The Indiana State Constitution Federalist Numbers 41 and 46 (James Madison, author)