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

Con’s third round response is quite patronizing. I find it slightly ironic that this patronization is coming from the same person that completely screwed up the first round and the structure of the debate. I hope the users of DDO show Con that toleration and grace is the way to go - not patronization and attacks directly aimed at people's intelligence.What Is The Militia?George Mason: “I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people….” [1]Corbin: “Who are the militia? Are we not militia?” [2]The militia is the people - by the people, for the people. For the founders, a militia, composed of a “people numerous and armed,” was the ultimate guard of Liberty. As long as States have a citizenry that is armed, they have a militia and are thus protecting the States and Liberty - meeting the asserted contract in the Second Amendment. If the people remain armed, we can still water that damned ficus of Con’s and save his marriage. Contention I: “the only reason I am allowing Pro to enter my home, in this case, is for the purpose of watering my ficus plant”The only reason the government “allows” us to keep arms is to maintain a well regulated Militia (keeping a healthy ficus)? Really? The idea that rights come from the government is in complete contradiction to what the founder’s had to say [3]. Rights spawn from self-evident truths, not the arbitrary whims of government. (1) Firearms are property - therefore we have an unalienable right to it as long as it does not conflict with the principles of Life and Liberty; (2) Con cannot provide any evidence (from the founders or others) that the people’s rights to firearms are contingent on the existence of well regulated Militia. That is to say, Con cannot give evidence that if, in the absence of a regulated Militia, the Founders explicitly state that our right to arms are void. Why? Because the government does not give rights. They merely enumerate them. A Few Words From Mr. Madison:“That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads,…. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government;” [4]And yet, this is exactly what has happened! The National guard is a regular standing army - a fixed plan of the extensions of the military establishment fully under the command of the federal government. Under Con’s argument, a regular army would necessarily lead Madison (and founders like him) to conclude that the Second Amendment has failed in its purpose and thus the people don’t have a right to bear arms . Does Madison conclude this? Let’s see: “Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. “ [5] Here Madison supports the view that, even in the face of a corrupt, abusive government, that has established a standing army, the people will still have the right to bear arms and, as consequence, the tyranny of the government can be thrown off the backs of the people. This flies in the face of Con’s contention that if Second Amendment fails in its intention to protect from a standing army, we ought to repeal it. Obviously, Con and the Founders are on two different pages.Contention II: “…but he damn well better water that stupid ficus,”As long as the people have firearms, the States will have a militia. And if the States have a universal militia, then your ficus is being watered - your marriage saved.Contention III: “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?”The assertion, that states have lost their ability to form state militias, cannot be backed up. And, in fact, is disproved by U.S. code.Under U.S.C TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States(b) The classes of the militia are- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. (State Militias)..... Conclusion:1.Con has withheld a source/justification for his assertion that the mere existence of entities like the National Guard terminates the states’ right to form and regulate militias. Contentions given with out proper justification will, sadly for Con, be disregarded. Even if, DDO forbid, he goes against the rules in the next round and gives a positive argument, he would still have to explain to all of us how U.S. Code , regarding the “unorganized” militia, is invalid or dooes not apply.2. Madison ( a favorite of Con’s) has given unmistakably clear evidence that the Second Amendment would not be failing, even when the government has a standing army. In Madison’s eyes, as long as the people of the United States are armed, the Second Amendment is doing its job just fine. 3. Con has made a critical error in arbitrarily writing off arguments “as straw man” or “fallacies”. Why the Wizard of Con didn’t think it necessary to give the voters any reason to think they are straw men or fallacies, is hard to judge. These arbitrary assertions aren’t going to be passed on as arguments - they are simply vacuous. Sources:[1]: Elliot 2:425.[2] Ibid. 3:113.[3] The Declaration Of Independence. I also hold that John Locke’s proofs are self-evident: Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created. Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right. Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.[4] The Federalist Papers No. 46.[5] Ibid.