The right to bear arms

Opponent's Overview: The issue I have with this is that the constitution is a law. It is not written to be subjectively interpreted to fit the times. The founder's intent tells us what the law means, so if the founders wrote an amendment to give the individual the right to bear arms, we have to uphold that right, no matter what the times are, it's the law. If you believe that the Constitution is a "living" document, you must show why it is "alive." Support this claim, and then we can talk about what the right to bear arms should be like in today's world. Contention 1: Grammar i) The reason the founders included the phrase "well regulated militia" was to show that the reason we need the right to bear is arms is so that we can form militias. 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. Militia, meaning armed civilians. ii) Yes, it is saying that we have the right to bear arms so that we can defend ourselves. That's what I said, the right to bear arms is an individual right, so that the individual can serve in the protection of himself and others. iii) Firstly, in this draft, the right to bear arms is not in the ablative, so your ablative flip is wrong, it is an independent clause, with again, the militia part being a dependent clause, this time as an appositive, and the conscientious objector clause being another independent clause. This however does not change the meaning I have argued for. It is saying that the individual can have an arm, so that he can defend himself and his buddies, and you can't force him to defend himself and his buddies if he has a religious objection. in short, we have the right so that we can form militias, but we cannot be forced to form militias if we have religious qualms in doing so. It is still an individual right, closely related to, but not dependent on militia service. Contention 2: First, we're going to have to extend this contention, because you didn't actually address my point that the word "people" is used, rather than militia in the second clause. But, addressing your point about the first clause, I again say this: The right to bear arms is related to but not dependent on militia service, that is, I have the right so I can join or form a militia, but I don't have to use the weapon to join or form a militia. Nowhere does it say that the right to keep and bear arms is revoked if one is not in the militia. Contention 3: Historical situation i) Well, a law is a law, no matter the historical situation. I used historical situation to show the founder's intent. ii) The militias at Concord and Lexington were not state sanctioned militias, they were civilian vigilantes, so what this shows us is that people have the right to keep that shotgun under their bed so that when the British come to take over Massachusetts, civilians can fight back. Militias were pretty much EVERYONE, or at least everyone capable of bearing arms (besides women). iii) First point- He was the one who actually wrote the amendment, so his intent is most important. Second Point- If pioneers can be considered militias, than Suburban Joe can be a militia as well, defending his home from burglars, murderers, and thugs. Contention 4: Founder's intent i) Here's some quotes from framers: "The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.) "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.) "The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.) Here are quotes from early commentators, note that many refer to Blackstone: "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." -St. George Tucker, Chief Justice of Virginia Supreme Court, publisher of 1803 edition of Blacktone, annotated to American Law, followed (William) Blackstone's citation on the common law right "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with this quote referring to the Second Amendment William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." The Jefferson papers in the LOC show that both Tucker and Rawles were correspondents of Jefferson, and that their views were shared by Jefferson, Madison, and many others. "the palladium of the liberties of the republic" -Joseph Story in "Commentaries on the Constitution" This entire subsection is sourced to http://www.constitution.org... PS I just showed framer's intent, and as I have said, the meaning of a law does not change with the times. You can try to prove me wrong. ii) These commentators were contemporaries of these "long dead framers" iii) Specifically, they admired his views on the right to bear arms (Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov...) For that source, go to Justice Scalia's second question to Dellinger. iv) Above I have provided much more than a single opinion, and if pressed could likely find an opinion from the majority of the framers of the second amendment. v) I don't, seeing as the vast majority of legal professionals use his law dictionary, so I think it is safe to say he was widely admired. Ending overview of opponent: The law that gives us the right to bear arms was written 220 years ago, so the intent of of that law is what is important, as that shows us what the law means.