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

Con Misunderstands The Second Amendment: “The Second Amendment is quite specific in its purpose - protection of life, liberty and so forth through the individual state's ability to form and regulate militias when necessary.”As I read this sentence, I immediately saw that its construction was crafted (intentionally or unintentionally) to give false justification for the rest of Con’s argument.The Second Amendment IS NOT protecting liberty of the people through state’s right to form and regulate select militias (probably because the states don‘t have that right), but in the individual right of the people to bear and keep arms. To protect life, liberty, and property, we must allow the people to keep firearms. The Second Amendment is the protection of the individual rights of American citizens, not the individual rights of the states. It is through the power of the People that Corruption is checked, not the states.As Joseph Story correctly said, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms had justly been, as the palladium of the Liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers;”. [1]Con Misunderstands State Authority: “Because a well-regulated state militia is necessary for the security of a free people,”. With this clause in mind, Con said the Second Amendment allows “…the individual state's ability to form and regulate militias when necessary.”This is simply not true. States haven’t been given much authority over militias since the ratification of the ConstitutionArticle I, Section 8 of the Constitution reads: Congress shall have power “to provide organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”As you can see, Con’s argument for the Second Amendment (that it supports State’s rights to control the regulation of the state militias) is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founders’ understanding of the Second Amendment.Therefore, The National Guard is not an usurpation of state rights nor the Second Amendment. It is completely in line with the constitutional powers of Congress and recognizes the true authority (or lack of authority) of the States.Blame The Student, Not The Pencil: “a Large, Centrally Controlled Standing Army is exactly what this country finds itself with, and therefore the Second Amendment has completely failed in its original intent, and has been constantly failing in that intent…”In following Con’s logic, people in the 1820’s could have said that the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that a person shall not “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” had failed in its intentions because of the existence of slavery. And just as Con is concluding now, they could have said that since “we are no longer using the [Fifth Amendment] for its intended purpose, and [multiple] sides to this part of the contract are in breach, the amendment should be immediately repealed.”Let’s get this straightened out: (1) A standing army is allowed by the Constitution, (2) In allowing a standing army in peace time, the Second Amendment has not failed us, it is the Federal government. In allowing slaves to be unjustly deprived of live, liberty, or property, the Fifth Amendment did not fail, it was the Federal government. Don’t blame the pencil for failing in the test, blame the student. The Constitution (the pencil in the analogy) is merely a parchment barrier between Liberty and Tyranny. It is up to the people and the other branches of government (the Student) to keep within the parameters of the Constitution (to pass the test). Even more absurd is his conclusion: “the amendment should be immediately repealed.” The Federal government has endangered the public with a standing army during peace time, this however does not mean you throw out the people’s right to bear arms (or redefine it). The problem isn’t the Second Amendment, nor is it the freedom espoused by it - it is the irresponsible actions of the Federal government. Con Has Yet To Make A Valid Case Against The Universal Militia:It is interesting to note that Con has made virtually no contention against the fact that U.S. citizens have the right to bear and keep arms, but rather has focused on an odd view of nullification of the people’s rights supposedly justified through the abuse of the Federal government.Contrary to Con’s “Early Commentaries Only Support Your View for the Purposes I Have Stated Above” would like to suggest, Joseph Story and the like, support both our views on the Second Amendment. Namely, that it is primarily a protection on the individual rights of the people to bear and keep firearms. The natural consequence of the Second Amendment is a bulwark against tyranny (including a standing army in peace time). Con Confuses Consequences of The Second Amendment With Its Purpose: It is easily to confuse the consequence of the Second Amendment with the purpose. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the right of the people to bear and keep arms from infringement. The natural consequence of allowing the citizenry to be armed is an Universal Militia or general militia. The purpose (In actuality, it is really the purpose of the consequence) of such militias is stated clearly by a man you quoted yourself: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.…” - Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts Con Is Factually Wrong On The Court Decision Of Presserr v. Illinois: Con has wrongly said that the court decision of Presserr v. Illinois states:“…that the 2nd amendment was not a right to form or be part of a militia. It related to people (individuals, it seems) bearing arms for the use of the US government, and as part of the militia as called up by the government” He did not give us a direct quote here for a reason. I, however, will give a direct quote from the court decision:“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states” [2]The court is, quite obviously, in direct contradiction to what Con has said. The court “undoubtedly” confirmed that all citizens had a right of bearing arms (the direct result of the Second Amendment) and constitute a reserved militia (the consequence of the Second Amendment).Con’s Conclusion Is Ludicrous:“The right of the Citizens of the United States to bear arms, unencumbered by laws from the legislature, has one purpose, and one purpose only - National Defense.” Again, Con attempts to unjustly simplify the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment’s purpose is personal liberty. One of the many consequences of the Second Amendment is National Defense found in the strength of free men and women.“Since no private citizen uses, or has used since the early 1950s, the firearms they purchase, personally, for the purpose of defending our great nation, the 2nd Amendment serves no legitimate purpose and the rights enumerated within it are therefore, naturally, void.” This is one of the absurd consequences of believing the Second Amendment is solely for National Defense. The Second Amendment’s “legitimate purpose” is to protect the natural rights of man, and its “legitimate” consequence is the prevention of tyranny. The Second Amendment has also allowed personal protection from home invasions and the like. Therefore, the Second Amendment is meeting its purpose - to keep people free and to allow them to protect themselves and the people they love.Sources:[1]: Joseph Story: The Constitution of the United States.[2] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...