The right to bear arms

Here is the rub, he has not demonstrated how the 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY gives an individual his or her right to bear arms. He has basically agreed with me that the major purpose of the 2nd amendment is to provide a militia, but he has not shown how this extends into a collective right. Premise 1: The constitution is living The concept of "living constitution" is widely present in our society today. The fact is, every time a court makes a ruling that offers a interpretation of the constitution, they're espousing the concept of "living constitution". As important cases such as PLessy vs. Ferguson, Brown vs. Board of Education, and various other laws that have offered interpretations of the constitution shows, the constitution is indeed a "living". Furthermore, the Supreme Court has also embraced this idea, as Justice Brennan advocates in the 1988 trial of Hazlewood District vs. Kuhlmeier: "that our Constitution is a living reality, not parchment preserved under glass." (http://writ.news.findlaw.com...). All of these quotes serves to support the fact that the Constiution is meant to be interpreted as times change Premise 2: The living constitution allows us to interpret laws, in this case the second amendment, differently than the framer's intent due to social conditions. The conditions today are far different than the ones of the fledging American republic. Today, we're a nation of 300 million no longer terrorized by the British or Indians, in fact, we have little to fear from domestic enemies that originally necessitated the 2nd amendment. Back in the 1780s and 1790s, America's only armed forces were STATE MILTIAS, a formal army was not raised, not even during the Whiskey Rebellion. Thus, the only means to protect the nation was through Citizen Militas. Clearly, this is no longer the case, we now have a very capable standing army to protect us, and thus taking away the very basis of the argument of some of the founders: see my opponent's contention 4 quotes from James Madison and Richard Lee. Back then, every able bodied man was suppose to serve in the milita in times of emergency, and thus, they were given the right to own guns. Now, we no longer have that situation, so we no longer have any need for the "individual" right for gun ownership Now, due to the fact that the Constitution is a pliable ideal, we have the ability to change the meaning of the amendment due to the simple fact that the ORIGINAL CONDITION S THAT NECESSTIATED THE FORMATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT NO LONGER APPLY, thus, it is in our best interest, whether to lower crime rates or what not, to enforce the ORIGINAL PURPOSE of the 2nd amendment (provide arms to militias) Conclusion: The main justifications given by the framer's for the second amendment have mostly faded away in today's society. Thus, the framer's intent should not be taken into account when deciding whether or not it is a collective or individual right given by the 2nd amendment. Now to my opponent's contentions: Contention 1) Ok, I missed something on the first pass through your round 1 arguments, you said that: "The first clause, talking about well regulated militias being necessary and all that is an ablative absolute. This is a Latin construction that prefaces the main clause of a sentence by stating the time, condition, or circumstances of an action being described in the main clause of the sentence." Ok, you said "stating the time, CONDITION, OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN ACTION DESCRIBED". So does this not DISPROVE your point? Because if the condition or circumstance of the right to bear arms is the upkeep of a militia, doesn't this mean you are bad at Latin? Does this not prove my point that the RESTRICTIONS on the 2nd amendment is that the main purpose is to Upkeep a militia? Furthermore, you agreed with me numerous times in various shape or forms throughout your arguments: " in short, it is saying that Danny Minuteman and his buddies can all have rifles so that they can form an effective militia to defend themselves and their families." "the right to bear arms is an individual right, so that the individual can serve in the protection of himself and others." "It is saying that the individual can have an arm, so that he can defend himself and his buddies" Do these statements not support my points? Because I am arguing that the sole premise of the 2nd amendment is to provide for a militia, which back then, meant DEFENDING themselves or Protection of himself and others? Then lastly, you make the statement: "It is still an individual right, closely related to, but not dependent on militia service." Ok I'll happily grant that the second statement "closely related to milita service" is true. BUT WHERE DID YOU GET "AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT" from the wording of the second amendment? Does it in any way, shape, or form, specify that it is an INDIVIDUAL right? NO, rather, it explicitly stated that the PRECONDITIONS (demonstrated earlier) for the right to bear arms is for the upkeep of a MILITIA. Contention 2: You keep saying that the right to bear arms is closely related to military service, but where does it say that the 2nd amendment explicitly gives the INDIVIDUAL the right to bear arms? Nowhere, but it does say that it should be used for milita service. What my opponent is claiming is based totally on inference, whereas my assertion is directly supported by a RESTRICTIVE clause preceding the main clause. Contention 3: i)Look, just because it's a law doesn't mean it's set in stone. We have reinterpreted the first amendment NUMEROUS times when times change. I bet the founding fathers never foresaw the internet as the subject of first amendment cases did they? With the far different conditions today (as stated earlier), the 2nd amendment should only be ii)IT matters not whether they were "state-sanctioned" or not, the point is, they were STILL MILITAS. The state-saction has nothing to do with it, they were amateur soldiers who were defending themselves – the definition of a milita. iii) His intent was justified based on Indian Attacks, and those are no longer present in today's society, so this justification and his intent are baseless and thus null and void. Contention 4: Back then, America was a different country, being threatened by all sides with rebellions (Shay's rebellion ect), Indian Attacks, and Foreign aggression. Thus, to maintain the safety of the country, a stable militia was needed. Back then, nearly everyone was called expected to serve in the militia, so the difference between an "Individual right" and "militia right" was nearly indistinguishable, and thus, my opponent's quotes all demonstrate the need for PROTECTION of either the country or ideals such as "liberty and freedom", which are necessarily the function of the militias. So, these quotes demonstrate conditions in the 1780s, not today. Summary: My opponent has basically agreed with me that the main purpose of the 2nd amendment is to guarantee the existence of militias, but he has not proven why the right should BE extended to EVERYONE in today's world. Furthermore, my opponent has focused his arguments on the necessity of militias BACK in the 1780s, not today. His only argument is that "a law is a law". But laws are interpreted by the Supreme Court, and when the DC. Vs. Heller decision comes back in a few weeks, we wouldn't need to be debating this. But the arguments that justified a militia back then are no longer valid.