Gun Rights for law abiding citizens should be protected.

[Sorry it took so long, I tried posting last night but Safari crashed toward the end] I'll argue the position that the Federal Government can regulate the sale of arms, but they cannot ban them. The States, however, may regulate (above what the Federal Government has chosen) and may even ban them- with a narrow exception for those serving in the Milita. First, as EagleEye appropriately noted, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and unless amended, what it says goes. So what does the Second Amendment actually say? EagleEye, I must call you out. You only quoted a portion of the Second Amendment. The full Amendment, as passed in 1791 actually says, "A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There are two valid interpretations of this. Eagle you would argue that it gives two rights, one for a militia and one for a individual right to bear arms. I argue otherwise. I think it gives a right for a well regulated Militia and two reasons for the importance of a well regulated militia. Either way, I think we can both agree that this was an exercise in very poor drafting by our Founding Fathers. Our initial knee jerk reaction would be to look at case law. After all it is the Judiciaries job to figure out these type of textual discrepancies. Even there, however, we find conflicts. Modern lower courts, such as in US v. Emerson in 1999 have argued that it is an individual right. However, the Supreme Court rejected that the Second Amendment gives us an individual right in 1939 (the case was United States v. Miller.) In doing so the SC upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934. Why did the Court rule this way? Because the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation of render[ing] possible the effectiveness of [the Milita]." 307 US 174, at 178 (1939.) Additionally for an individual to gain Second Amendment protection a weapon possessed must have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [and] [c]ertainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Id. So, while the text is not conclusive, a non-activist judge, acceding to precedent, should accept what the Supreme Court has already interpreted and rule consistently. However, there is more than just precedent to support this position. While there is little in the way of legislative history, it seems the debate, principally between Madison and Hamilton suggests the Amendment dealt with the Militias and not the individual. Madison argued that States need protection from the Federal Government. By allowing the states to have Militias, and allowing the Militias to be armed, the States would have a ready army to challenged the authority of the Federal government should Tyranny attempt to take control. Hamilton argued that the Militias should be at the control of the Federal government to make them more cohesive. Obviously the Federalists, favoring States rights, won out on this issue. Thus, the "People" in the Second Amendment refers to the States, specifically those members of the Militia. Now, I know, you are probably saying, "but we don't have Militias anymore. It is an outdated idea, and the Constitutional interpretation should reflect this." That argument is a swing... and a miss. You see Militias have morphed, but are now better known as "the National Guard." So, instead of a massive interpretive change, all that is really needed is to understand that "National Guard" = "Militia." Constitutionally this suggests to us that the Federal Government can regulate weapons, but cannot forbid them BECAUSE States have a constitutional rights to a well armed Militia. Additionally, those people who join a Militia are then guaranteed a right to bear arms. My next argument stems from the purpose of gun control. I can naturally cite statistics of how many people die, or why they die every year, but that would be a poor argument. No, there are two very good arguments to regulate gun control. (1) Police protection. Policemen often have to go into seedy areas, and they often pray the bad guys don't have guns. However, in some areas there is less of a risk that the motorist is armed, and the officers can act on those underlying assumptions. Eagle, if I listen to your first and second arguments, it sounds as if you want the presumption to be that everyone is armed, so criminals would be scared. However, imagine what this would do to the police psyche, how less willing they will be to help out of fear that not only may the bad guy be armed, but they would be better armed than the officer is. Surely, we don't want to create, or incentivize an arms race between police and criminals. I'm also sure this isn't what your arguing, but it is an unintended consequence. (2) Catching Criminals. Al Capone was a bad guy. He was a murderer, a money launderer, and the list goes on. However, he was arrested, charged, and tried for tax evasion. Why do I bring this up? Because often times the worst criminals, or even good petty criminals, are able to escape prosecution for their serious crimes. It is harder for me as a Prosecutor to show that a Defendant attacked and robbed a bystander. It is easier to show that he was carrying a weapon in violation of some regulation. Gun control, especially in large cities, makes sense. It helps catch criminals that otherwise would be able to go free. If we allow an individual right to bear arms, this would seriously hamper the catching of criminals, especially drug dealers and violent offenders. Finally, Often times libertarians and individual right supporters argue that a well armed militia is needed to protect us from the federal government. This may be true, in fact Madison did the math to support such a position as to why the States needed the militias, however that was then, this is now. In the late 18th century the best we had was muskets as very crude revolvers. I'm looking at a replica of George Washington's revolver right now, and would note that it would take a while to reload these old guns. Warfare has come along way, and I assure you, if the government really wanted to take control and "frighteningly abuse" their power... they could, and guess what, your guys won't help you against that tank, or that SeaHawk, or that missile. Your doomsday scenario will not be changed one iota because you have guns. In fact, having those guns is like ducking and covering during a nuclear explosion, it may make you feel better before you die, but that's about all they will do. Question: What are we defining as "arms?" Simply allowing guns generally, even if only limiting to pistols or hunting rifles, or more expansive. If a more expansive argument is being made then what is the limit? Can a Grenade be an arm? How about an RPG? Where is the limit and what principles would you use to make the limit