The right to bear arms.

I guess I should be Con but w/e, it's technically not a resolution anyway. I'll go at my opponent's points before backing up mine. I. From dictionary. com: " miï¿½liï¿½tia Audio Help /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. " I will break down each definition. 1: This concerns a part of the military that does not serve full-time unless in emergencies. 2: The subjects are referred to as "citizen SOLDIERS as distinguished from professional soldiers". This means that they are still soldiers, but not professionals. Much like definition 1. 3: People that are able to serve in the military. 4: From dictionary. com: " parï¿½aï¿½milï¿½iï¿½tarï¿½y Audio Help /ˌpï¿½rəˈmɪlɪˌtɛri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-mil-i-ter-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, plural -tarï¿½ies. –adjective 1. noting or pertaining to an organization operating as, in place of, or as a supplement to a regular military force: a paramilitary police unit. –noun " This refers to citizens that are backups for the military. They protect citizen rights, but are still part of the military. So as I have shown, a militia is either a subdivision of the military, or is affiliated with the military. A random mass of people protecting their rights merely have arms and a common cause. This does not make them "well-regulated", nor does it make them a "militia". So they do not have the right to bear arms, because they are not a well-regulated militia. The colonists also got their weapons from Britain, and their use was, by law, only for hunting, NOT self-defense. This makes this point null, since the definition of militia does not fit your contention, and guns from the revolution were not allowed to be used in self-defense. II. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an extension or definition of the first subject of the amendment, "A well-regulated militia". It is explaining what a "well-regulated militia" has/is. Also, that law in Texas is ridiculous. In court, you cannot tell a man's intentions. He could just say, "I thought he was gonna kill me" and he can get away with justified manslaughter rather than second-degree murder or [voluntary] manslaughter. III. Automobile deaths would be much less common if there was not drunk driving, road rage, etc. Many accidents are at the fault of the driver. Likewise, guns do not kill people. People with guns kill people. However, it can only take the slightest aggravation for the trigger to go off. Guns are much more dangerous than cars, regardless of which one actually kills more people. A gun is also available to more people than a car is. You see little children playing with guns on the news, but you don't see them hijacking cars. A gun is too dangerous to be available to pretty much any individual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now to defend my case: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I already provided a definition of militia above, so you can check that. I will also re-analyze the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " A well-regulated militia: An organized or well-directed body of citizens who are involved, a part of, or affiliated with the military. being necessary to the security of a free State: My opponent defined the security of a State, but not how it is "being necessary" to it. If you'll look at the amendment, this phrase is an absolute phrase, which means it modifies or describes the subject (in this case, a well-regulated militia). So this clause is saying that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. the right of the people to keep and bear arms: This is another absolute phrase which describes a well-regulated militia. Here, it states that a well-regulated militia has the right to keep and bear their arms. shall not be infringed: Obviously, will not be violated. Please note that "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" are absolute phrases that merely further define, describe and extend on the subject of the amendment, "A well-regulated militia". So the amendment can, effectively, be restated as such: "The right of a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed. " ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have shown that the Second Amendment does not give Average Not-Part-Of-A-Well-Regulated-Militia Joe the right to keep or bear an arm (gun).