The right to bear arms

Okay, first his case, then mine. Premise 1: The Constitution is living. First, simply because the Supreme Court does something, does not mean they are right. In the Dred Scott case, and Plessy v. Ferguson I think we can agree that they were wrong. The fact that the Supreme Court overturns itself is not proof that the Constitution is living, it is simply proof that the Constitution is very confusing, even to experts on the topic, and they are sometimes wrong, (Dred Scott, Plessy). Your Justice Brennan quote does not prove the constitution is living, as if we just use quotes to prove our points I'll use Justice Scalia's famous statement: "The constitution is dead!" It doesn't prove my point, but neither does your Brennan point, one of them is wrong, the other is right. You have not refuted my point that a law's meaning does not change simply because the times change, the first amendment does not lose its meaning as protector of free speech, neither does the second amendment. But since you dropped the point it is flowed across regardless of your defense. 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. Since I took out Premise 1, this premise fails. Anyways, the times don't call for a change in interpretation anyways. They may call for safety restrictions such as licenses, trigger locks, assault weapon bans, but not for an outright ban on firearms possession. Men still can form one man militias against intruding murderers, robbers, and thugs. This is especially important in more dangerous parts of the country. Conclusion: As I proved the constitution is not living your conclusion fails. My case: Contention 1: Actually I think you said that. Anyways, as I have said, they have the right so that they can protect themselves, and at the time, a local militia was most effective. That's why it referred to militias in the ablative. They have the right so that, if they wish, they can join a militia. Just because one is not in a militia does not revoke the right. Or maybe you mean militias are no longer necessary. As I mentioned earlier, the "one-man militia" is necessary today to protect one's home and family especially in dangerous parts of the country. You also claim I agree with you multiple times, but this is false. The first amendment was given to us so that we could make anti-government speech, but it does not apply only to anti-government speech, most speech is protected under the first amendment. The same goes for the second, the right was given so that we could join militias, but it is not limited to militias. You also say that I have no justification that the second amendment gives individual right. I do, and I have said it. It says the people in the second clause, rather than the militia's. If it gave a right to militias only it would say militias, not people. The word people implies that the right to bear arms is given to the people, not just the military. Contention 2: Addressed this but, the ablative is not restrictive, it is explanatory. It is the why, not the how. Example: "The city having been captured, Aeneas fled." Aeneas fled because the city was captured, it does not mean that Aeneas can only flee if said city is captured. I also pointed out the usage of "people" and the eight primary sources or so in C4. Contention 3: i) Addressed that up in opponent's P1 ii) one man militia I mentioned is the same thing. Anyways, you contradict yourself, you first said that it was only for state militias. iii) Addressed this. iv) Opponent dropped this, ergo he agrees that founders intended it to be an individual right. v) Opponent dropped this, ergo he agrees that founders intended it to be an individual right. Contention 4: Already showed the constitution is not living so 21st century conditions are irrelevant. Summary: Since I have proven that the Constitution's basic meaning does not change, and I have proven that the founders intended it to be an individual right, you voter PRO. I rest my case.