Wanted: Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

Except that you already have told us what you “believe that the 2nd A does protect”:

I already know what your opinion is. That is why I asked you to explain how it works to protect what you believe it is supposed to protect from the power Congress was given over the militia and its arms.

All of your posts since I first asked you if you were willing to engage my on this specific issue…Everything from your uninformed claim that the Amendment was designed to protect against state neglect of the militia—from your false claim that I have not addressed the militia clause—from your dismissal of every source cited against you (including your own)—to you latest attempt to say we can’t be having this argument over your opinion because you want to pretend you haven’t said what your opinion is yet—to your new demands that I must answer questions before you can reveal to me your opinion—all of this is simply an attempt to evade this reality:

You gave us an opinion that the 2nd A RKBA is limited to the militia. I told you your opinion is wrong because that interpretation is destroyed by the rest of the Constitution you did not bother to read. You have realized you have no answer for it, and you are unwilling to admit you have no answer for that argument.

I have attempted this discussion several times before with others on this blog site, and no one has answered this criticism of the interpretation of the Amendment they share with you. They have all, in one form or another, sought to evade it.

I had hoped you would be different.

 

By calling it my "opinion" you demonstrate that you don't understand what I'm saying.

But anyway, what it protects is also explicitly stated in the 2nd A. The goal is to protect the security of a free state. And it states that the only way to do that, at that moment in time, was through a well regulated militia.

Again: the 2nd A says what it means and means what it says. I see very little room for interpretation. It tells us what is protected (the right of the people to bear arms against an enemy that threatens the security of a free state), it tells us how (through a well regulated militia), and it tells us why (because a well regulated militia is necessary)

It's actually very simple. The complexity is introduced only by those who try to use contorted logic and twisted arguments to try to extrapolate some "right to own guns" that is not either explicitly or implicitly in the text of the 2nd A.

You have not. You insist on calling the militia clause my "opinion". I wasn't alive when the 2nd A was written. So how could the militia clause be my "opinion"?

 

Of course, people rented and borrowed guns back in those days and didn't "own" the arms they were bearing. /sarcasm

One can argue that we never truly own anything. Even the concept of ownership only applies to what you can defend!

 

You can argue whatever the hell you want. Except that the text of the 2nd A affirms some "right to own guns". Because I have proven that it is not so.

 

Far reaching opinions are no substitute for proof. To believe the quotes from the founders meant guns were rented or borrowed is far from reasonable. If I rent or borrow something, do I get to keep it?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

 

Now. As in we’re already there. As in no more gun laws are needed. As in no need to go any further.

 

I have submitted NO opinions. All I have done is show the words of the 2nd A as written. If you want to claim that the words written were not intended to be taken literally... or that they were some sort of "metaphor" or something like that, then that would be an opinion. And it would be your burden to demonstrate it.

What nonsense! I have said nothing about "rented or borrowed"

You realize that fabricating your opponent's arguments is a clear sign that you have realized you are unable to rebut their real arguments? That's called a "strawman".

So you can either address my real argument (which is nothing more than the text itself of the 2nd A) or, absent of that, you would be conceding that what I say is fact.

 

You know this statement false, as you know the 2A, literally, says:
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.
Why do you make statements you know are false?

 

Here you go. Wrote this just for you.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-101-for-gun-advocates.585785/

You're welcome!

 

Lol proven? You can not support your position with any legal precedent, law or court ruling. Your position is specifically refuted by legal precedent, law and court rulings.

 

You made a weak reference to "owning". You are far from correct.

 

I made NO reference to owning. Except to point out that the 2nd A does not deal with that in either direction.

 

Ban Semi-Automatics. Handguns must be stored at shooting range.

 

I can see how this would benefit violent criminals by providing easy victims. How would that benefit society?

 

The worlds first "assault weapon"....still viable after all these years.

 

Please support your response with a sound argument.

 

Nothing here changes the fact you know made a statement that you know is false.
Why do you make statements you know are false?

 

According to the Gun Control Act of 1968, the legitimate uses of firearms are “…hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity”.
According to Heller the Second Amendment protects firearms " for traditionally lawful purposes".

Given these, what do you think should be excluded?

 

Sure.

Amount: none.

It is a tool, in the same sense a shovel is a tool. We do not have shovel control. It is simply property.

My right to own any property is not any one else's to rightfully or morally infringe upon.