My Issue With The 2008 Second Amendment Decision

[wandering peacefully]

Oops! I did do that didn't I? What a mistaka to maka! (1-nil to @Nous) Yes indeed, they put the extra words in later (much later it seems - I'm guessing Virginians took a bit longer to become sufficiently slow of wit to need it spelled out) to explain to the hard of understanding how the hell, in the absence of a standing professional army, "the body of the people" could be "trained to arms" without "keeping" arms at their disposal (personally, individually) so that they could "train" themselves (personally, individually) to "bear arms" and thereby be ready and able when called upon to act as part of a "well-regulated militia" in defense of the state.

By contrast, your argument seems essentially to boil down to the suggestion that the various Constitutions and Bills of Rights that protect the freedom to keep and bear arms were, in fact, unless specifically stated otherwise, intended to imply that the defense of the state was to be left in the hands of a non-professional, yet "well-regulated militia" composed of the "body of the people" who would, at the commencement of battle, immediately leap to the defense of the nation by fiddling and farting around trying figure out how to load and fire a weapon they had never clapped eyes on before?

Ah, good. Another person who agrees arming a well regulated militia was the purpose behind the amendment. Only several million to go.

Do you believe well regulated militias are still necessary?

 

[siti]

Ah, good. Another person who agrees arming a well regulated militia was the purpose behind the amendment. Only several million to go.

Do you believe well regulated militias are still necessary?

Of course not - and that has been my argument all along - the second amendment is an anachronism - the US currently has professional armed forces tasked with defending its borders and protecting internal security. But arguing that the second amendment wording did not mean to protect an individual right to "keep and bear" arms is both incorrect and unfruitful. "Arming a well-regulated militia" was the purpose, legally ensuring the individual's right to own and use a gun was the means. It really is that simple. And since "a well-regulated militia" composed of the "body of the people, trained to arms" is no longer necessary, the second amendment is no longer necessary. Is it?

 

[wandering peacefully]

Of course not - and that has been my argument all along - the second amendment is an anachronism - the US currently has professional armed forces tasked with defending its borders and protecting internal security. But arguing that the second amendment wording did not mean to protect an individual right to "keep and bear" arms is both incorrect and unfruitful. "Arming a well-regulated militia" was the purpose, legally ensuring the individual's right to own and use a gun was the means. It really is that simple. And since "a well-regulated militia" composed of the "body of the people, trained to arms" is no longer necessary, the second amendment is no longer necessary. Is it?

Well then we are in total agreement.

However, if the argument that a well regulated militia was the sole purpose of the amendment and people being able to keep and bear arms was just the means to arm that militia is not made apparent to all, we will never be able to do away with the outdated amendment.

Not that any of it matters because the NRA is god. And people love their guns. A new amendment would just be created making it clear that no one messes with Mericas guns.

 

[Nous]

Well we can move to baseball bats or mace if you like, but I am talking about the federal government. We can also note that felons in prison are temporarily deprived of any right to have arms. You are certainly missing the point. Felons are people. They have a right to keep and bear arms. That such a right is limited does not mean that the right is extinguished. The constitution acknowledges that an individual right to keep and bear arms exists for "the people." The people are not qualified. But in instances where a law can survive the necessary scrutiny, then one's rights may be limited.

This is not a hard problem. I have already offered several analogues for comparison.

Oops! I did do that didn't I? What a mistaka to maka! (1-nil to @Nous) Yes indeed, they put the extra words in later (much later it seems - I'm guessing Virginians took a bit longer to become sufficiently slow of wit to need it spelled out) to explain to the hard of understanding how the hell, in the absence of a standing professional army, "the body of the people" could be "trained to arms" without "keeping" arms at their disposal (personally, individually) so that they could "train" themselves (personally, individually) to "bear arms" and thereby be ready and able when called upon to act as part of a "well-regulated militia" in defense of the state.

By contrast, your argument seems essentially to boil down to the suggestion that the various Constitutions and Bills of Rights that protect the freedom to keep and bear arms were, in fact, unless specifically stated otherwise, intended to imply that the defense of the state was to be left in the hands of a non-professional, yet "well-regulated militia" composed of the "body of the people" who would, at the commencement of battle, immediately leap to the defense of the nation by fiddling and farting around trying figure out how to load and fire a weapon they had never clapped eyes on before?

So neither of you were ever able to argue on the basis of any fact, i.e., any proposition that you can substantiate to be true, either (a) that the crafters of the Second Amendment intended the Amendment to secure a right to armaments for personal-use purposes such as self-defense in the home, or (b) that the right the crafters of the Second Amendment intended to secure was violated by laws such as the 2 struck down in Heller. Correct?

 

[Curious George]

So neither of you were ever able to argue on the basis of any fact, i.e., any proposition that you can substantiate to be true, either (a) that the crafters of the Second Amendment intended the Amendment to secure a right to armaments for personal-use purposes such as self-defense in the home, or (b) that the right the crafters of the Second Amendment intended to secure was violated by laws such as the 2 struck down in Heller. Correct?

Incorrect. You just weren't listening.

 

[siti]

Incorrect. You just weren't listening.

I second that!

 

[wandering peacefully]

I second that!

Since the topic of the thread has seemingly run it's course, may I ask a few questions of those who love their guns? I still haven't figured out how to start a thread and my question is not worthy of another thread anyway.

How do those who love to target practice feel about the property rights of others who live near NEW outdoor gun ranges or sandpits in the woods? I understand long existing ranges and people who choose to move next to one. That is not my question.

Do they stop once and ask themselves if they are destroying the peace and quiet for the people who can hear them? And if they can bring themselves to form that thought, do they care? If not, why not? If so, why do they do it anyway?

And finally, do they find the second amendment more important than inalienable rights? Why?

Thanks for any insight any of you can give.

 

[Curious George]

Since the topic of the thread has seemingly run it's course, may I ask a few questions of those who love their guns? I still haven't figured out how to start a thread and my question is not worthy of another thread anyway.

Click on "forums" select the forum in which you would like to add a thread. Then there should be a "post new thread" button. Perhaps someone @Skwim can give you a better description with screen shots. He is good at walking people through steps.

How do those who love to target practice feel about the property rights of others who live near NEW outdoor gun ranges or sandpits in the woods? I understand long existing ranges and people who choose to move next to one. That is not my question.

Do they stop once and ask themselves if they are destroying the peace and quiet for the people who can hear them? And if they can bring themselves to form that thought, do they care? If not, why not? If so, why do they do it anyway?

I think this brings up a very good reason why some of the regulation such as the extra requirements for suppressors are harmful. Local areas have zoning laws that regulate where one can have an outdoor shooting range. I think that the tendency to exempt gun ranges from nuisance laws specifically noise and lead pollution is not good.

Trump Administration Revokes Lead Bullet Ban, But California's May Hold

Lead is not necessary.
A Hunter Asks, “Why Are Lead Bullets Still a Thing?”

Neither would be the level of noise if suppressors were more readily available.

Regarding noise pollution, I believe that these institutions should not be exempt from noise nuisance. That doesn't mean that if you hear it at all that you have a complaint. But noise should be reduced to reasonable levels.

And finally, do they find the second amendment more important than inalienable rights? Why?

Thanks for any insight any of you can give.

I think the second amendment represents an inalienable right.

 

[Ponder This]

I've been doing some thinking about this second amendment and it seems to me that:

1. keeping and bearing arms is a 'right'
2. there is at least one reason not to 'infringe' that right

I don't see an argument about militia that gets around the notion that keeping and bearing arms is a right.
The right to carry weapons is for anyone who wants to carry a weapon. That means: not just soldiers, not just police (it includes teachers and doctors and everyone else).

However, it also seems to me that the second amendment has placed an importance on militia that gets overlooked. In particular, the second amendment says militia are 'necessary to a free state'. Given that this is the case, it seems the proper thing to do is bring militia back.

Ah, good. Another person who agrees arming a well regulated militia was the purpose behind the amendment. Only several million to go.

Do you believe well regulated militias are still necessary?

Hmm, while the purpose of the second amendment was to prevent the infringement of the 'right' to keep and bear arms, that does not mean that militia are not important. In fact, I'm actually inclined to think that the U.S. would be safer if we had militia. So are they 'necessary'? It seems there were some free-thinkers who thought so. I am not inclined to disagree. In fact, researching the history of the right to bear arms does suggest that militia is not something that should be dismissed too easily as anachronism.

Of course not - and that has been my argument all along - the second amendment is an anachronism - the US currently has professional armed forces tasked with defending its borders and protecting internal security. But arguing that the second amendment wording did not mean to protect an individual right to "keep and bear" arms is both incorrect and unfruitful. "Arming a well-regulated militia" was the purpose, legally ensuring the individual's right to own and use a gun was the means. It really is that simple. And since "a well-regulated militia" composed of the "body of the people, trained to arms" is no longer necessary, the second amendment is no longer necessary. Is it?

That's actually. The second amendment does not give militia as a reason to grant a right to arms, it gives it a reason not to infringe that right. This means that the right to bear arms exists regardless of the existence of militia. Moreover, the fact that the U.S. has professional armed forces tasked with defending its borders and protecting internal security is not relevant to the question of 'free state'. I think there is a question as to whether or not there is sufficient security to protect our freedoms and perhaps militia are necessary to that.

Well then we are in total agreement.

However, if the argument that a well regulated militia was the sole purpose of the amendment and people being able to keep and bear arms was just the means to arm that militia is not made apparent to all, we will never be able to do away with the outdated amendment.

Not that any of it matters because the NRA is god. And people love their guns. A new amendment would just be created making it clear that no one messes with Mericas guns.

Strange, if, as you say, well-regulated militia were the sole reason for the right to arms (according to the second amendment), then the absence of militia would suffice to allow the infringement of the right. There would be no need to repeal the second amendment, because you would be able to quote the second amendment as the reason to restrict arms. So your argument is inconsequential.

So neither of you were ever able to argue on the basis of any fact, i.e., any proposition that you can substantiate to be true, either (a) that the crafters of the Second Amendment intended the Amendment to secure a right to armaments for personal-use purposes such as self-defense in the home, or (b) that the right the crafters of the Second Amendment intended to secure was violated by laws such as the 2 struck down in Heller. Correct?

The right to bear arms goes back into English history. The Bill of Rights for the United States was modeled on the English Bill of Rights 1689. Notions of "freedom speech", "cruel and unusual punishment", and "have arms for their defense" were codified in the English Bill of Rights 1689 and the U.S. Bill of Rights. If you take the time to research the history of the right to bear arms, you will discover that it does go back to the 'natural right' of resistance and self-preservation and that means it includes the right to defense in the home.

It seems to me that the desire to repeal the second amendment is not related to militia at all and that people who desire to repeal the second amendment are just anxious to find any excuse to deny people their right to arms because they believe this will make the country safer. This explains their strange arguments regarding the second amendment where they seek to alter the grammatical structure to suit their purposes.

You may now continue using this thread for your own nefarious purposes.

 

[Curious George]

Justice John Paul Stevens Is Wrong About the Second Amendment, Again

@Nous and @Skwim

 

[Skwim]

Justice John Paul Stevens Is Wrong About the Second Amendment, Again

@Nous and @Skwim

You have permission to hit me upside the head if I ever start paying attention to a right-wing, American libertarian monthly magazine like Reason.

.

.

 

[Curious George]

You have permission to hit me upside the head if I ever start paying attention to a right-wing, American libertarian monthly magazine like Reason.

.

.

Lol, it seemed you were having trouble understanding an other than Steven's approach to the 2nd Amendment. I thought you might want to expand your horizon.

 

[Nous]

So neither of you were ever able to argue on the basis of any fact, i.e., any proposition that you can substantiate to be true, either (a) that the crafters of the Second Amendment intended the Amendment to secure a right to armaments for personal-use purposes such as self-defense in the home, or (b) that the right the crafters of the Second Amendment intended to secure was violated by laws such as the 2 struck down in Heller. Correct?

Incorrect. You just weren't listening.

I second that!

All you have to do is state your argument and show that your premises are true propositions. Neither of you have done any such thing. That's the reason neither of you can quote where you have stated any such argument.

 

[Nous]

I don't see an argument about militia that gets around the notion that keeping and bearing arms is a right.

What do you claim was the reason that the crafters of the Second Amendment specified the context of a well-regulated militia, but did not specify any personal-use purposes armaments, such as handguns for self-defense in the home or rifles for hunting?

The right to carry weapons is for anyone who wants to carry a weapon.

Obviously no court has ever held that the Second Amendment means any such thing. [/QUOTE]

 

[Willamena]

Of course not - and that has been my argument all along - the second amendment is an anachronism - the US currently has professional armed forces tasked with defending its borders and protecting internal security. But arguing that the second amendment wording did not mean to protect an individual right to "keep and bear" arms is both incorrect and unfruitful. "Arming a well-regulated militia" was the purpose, legally ensuring the individual's right to own and use a gun was the means. It really is that simple. And since "a well-regulated militia" composed of the "body of the people, trained to arms" is no longer necessary, the second amendment is no longer necessary. Is it?

In a sense, it is. It's purpose is not to arm a militia, but to protect the people from the military branch of the government, should that government decide to use that branch against the people. Rather than eliminating the amendment, it requires a rewording.

 

[Curious George]

All you have to do is state your argument and show that your premises are true propositions. Neither of you have done any such thing. That's the reason neither of you can quote where you have stated any such argument.

14 pages is not that many for you to go through. So infra is all the direction that need be given. Needless to say, your contrived efforts to avoid points only seem like the squirming of the clearly impeached.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

​

Of course not - and that has been my argument all along - the second amendment is an anachronism - the US currently has professional armed forces tasked with defending its borders and protecting internal security. But arguing that the second amendment wording did not mean to protect an individual right to "keep and bear" arms is both incorrect and unfruitful. "Arming a well-regulated militia" was the purpose, legally ensuring the individual's right to own and use a gun was the means. It really is that simple. And since "a well-regulated militia" composed of the "body of the people, trained to arms" is no longer necessary, the second amendment is no longer necessary. Is it?

I agree and disagree with you here.

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.
​

Clearly, the purpose is to have the “well regulated Militia”. These are the first words in the amendment, it is the topic of the sentence. It is the purpose of writing the amendment. Period. Misinterpretations otherwise are naive pandering.
However, the presence in modern times of a professional military is beside the point in my opinion, and I believe in the opinions of the “founding fathers”.
Theirs was a society and mindset of fearing (and defying) a tyrannical government. The muskets that they were discussing were, hands down, the main weapon of warfare across the face of the Earth. By allowing the individual states to maintain their own state militias, unfettered by the federal government, they could rest assured that some king wannabe couldn’t march his federal “professional military” across the continent, unhindered.
And though I hate to say it.....The current and previous aristocrat (er....I mean Republican) presidents have certainly raised the prospect of a power-grab, enough to almost make me want a state militia.

The Heller decision in 2008, and the whole idea that this is about individual rights and about home or personal defense against criminals is witless rubbish.
The few times that the SCOTUS got involved in firearm issues over 200 years, they leaned heavily on the ideas of state militias being paramount, as I’ve stated above. Only the partison court of 2008 (that is even worse now) could have sided with Heller. This was never about having muskets in every house for defense against criminals. Any and every buffoon who has held, loaded, and fired a musket knows undeniably that nobody defends their home with a musket (short, or long barreled). They are far too slow to load, and cannot be kept in a loaded state for a protracted period of time (the powder from that period gets damp from humidity).
Home and personal defense in the minds of the founding fathers was a knife, a stick, a frying pan, or a fist. Guns of any form were for battles, and hunting.
Personal writings by several of the founding fathers admit that civilians with guns makes us vulerable to murders, but they accepted that as a price for freedom from a monarch. But they clearly indicate that such freedom is via organized and well trained groups of militiamen, not drunken idiots with firepower.


So. It has always been about state militias, not about individual’s rights. It is to oppose tyrannical conquest of the nation, not about stopping a burglary.

 

[Ponder This]

What do you claim was the reason that the crafters of the Second Amendment specified the context of a well-regulated militia, but did not specify any personal-use purposes armaments, such as handguns for self-defense in the home or rifles for hunting?
Obviously no court has ever held that the Second Amendment means any such thing.

[/QUOTE]

I suggest you brush up on the history of the second amendment... in particular how and why it came to be. It has long been held that there is a natural right to self-defense, auxiliary to the natural and legal rights to life.
The English Bill of Right 1689 addressed the issue of the authority of the King to disarm his subjects.
The founders were well aware of this and well aware that the right to arms is a natural right of the people.

You ask why the founders didn't say, "Everyone has the right to defend themselves", or "Everyone has the right to hunt", or "Hand-guns may be used for this purpose and for that purpose and for this other purpose and for that other purpose", etc., etc. To which I refer you to the ninth amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The founders don't have to make an exhaustive list of reasons to justify the right to arms. It suffices for them to say it is a right and move on.

As to why they mention militia, the second amendment protects not only the right of people to arm, but it protects the right of the states to have organized militia. The government can't prevent the states from organizing their armed citizens. The reason for all of this goes back to the English Bill of Rights 1689 where the authority of King to disarm his subjects was addressed.

Obviously no court has ever held that the Second Amendment means any such thing.

I'm not familiar with what every court has said about this, but to my knowledge every court in the United States affirms that every person has the right to self-defense and I am unaware of any court in the United States that denies this. The right to arms is a natural right of the people.

Clearly, the purpose is to have the “well regulated Militia”. These are the first words in the amendment, it is the topic of the sentence. It is the purpose of writing the amendment. Period. Misinterpretations otherwise are naive pandering.

I understand why you regard militia as the topic of the amendment and you can even argue that militia is the main purpose of the amendment, but that does not in any way invalidate the language of the amendment or that the amendment states that keeping and bearing arms is a right. If the amendment were solely about militia, it would have sufficed to talk only about militia. It seems rather obtuse to read the first clause and disregard the second.

So. It has always been about state militias, not about individual’s rights. It is to oppose tyrannical conquest of the nation, not about stopping a burglary.

I have to disagree, the right to arms has always been argued as auxiliary to the right to self-defense.
Militia are also auxiliary to the that right. While the concern that the states would not be able to defend themselves was a real concern that does not in any way detract from the right of the people to self-defense.

I don't see where you get off saying that people can't defend their homes from burglary. Are you saying people are supposed to let burglars commit crimes in their homes?

I'm just trying to imagine someone telling a judge:
"Well, I told him to stop raping my wife, but he ignored me. I was forced to watch because I'm not a member of any militia and even if I were I don't have the right to stop someone from entering my home illegally to commit crimes. Obviously, I would've killed him if I was allowed to defend my home, but, you know, everyone is worried that some idiot is going to accidentally shoot himself... so we've all agreed that we should just let the government handle this sort of thing for us. After all, if everyone would just follow the law, then there never would have been a burglar in my house. And even if not everyone follows the law, statistics show that everyone is safer if they don't take action to defend themselves. Yes, my wife has been permanently traumatized, but I feel good knowing that my children didn't accidentally shoot themselves and that the government is going to take action against the burglar."

You might want to consider that you while you were reading the second amendment this extraordinary thing happened when you got to the word 'right'. Your mind leaped across it as if it did not exist and you told yourself, "This is really all about militia; people don't actually have a 'right'. This document I'm reading is actually the Bill of 'things that may be infringed'." It isn't often that I get to say a certain point of view is bull****.

 

[Curious George]

I agree and disagree with you here.

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.
​

Clearly, the purpose is to have the “well regulated Militia”. These are the first words in the amendment, it is the topic of the sentence. It is the purpose of writing the amendment. Period. Misinterpretations otherwise are naive pandering.
However, the presence in modern times of a professional military is beside the point in my opinion, and I believe in the opinions of the “founding fathers”.
Theirs was a society and mindset of fearing (and defying) a tyrannical government. The muskets that they were discussing were, hands down, the main weapon of warfare across the face of the Earth. By allowing the individual states to maintain their own state militias, unfettered by the federal government, they could rest assured that some king wannabe couldn’t march his federal “professional military” across the continent, unhindered.
And though I hate to say it.....The current and previous aristocrat (er....I mean Republican) presidents have certainly raised the prospect of a power-grab, enough to almost make me want a state militia.

The Heller decision in 2008, and the whole idea that this is about individual rights and about home or personal defense against criminals is witless rubbish.
The few times that the SCOTUS got involved in firearm issues over 200 years, they leaned heavily on the ideas of state militias being paramount, as I’ve stated above. Only the partison court of 2008 (that is even worse now) could have sided with Heller. This was never about having muskets in every house for defense against criminals. Any and every buffoon who has held, loaded, and fired a musket knows undeniably that nobody defends their home with a musket (short, or long barreled). They are far too slow to load, and cannot be kept in a loaded state for a protracted period of time (the powder from that period gets damp from humidity).
Home and personal defense in the minds of the founding fathers was a knife, a stick, a frying pan, or a fist. Guns of any form were for battles, and hunting.
Personal writings by several of the founding fathers admit that civilians with guns makes us vulerable to murders, but they accepted that as a price for freedom from a monarch. But they clearly indicate that such freedom is via organized and well trained groups of militiamen, not drunken idiots with firepower.


So. It has always been about state militias, not about individual’s rights. It is to oppose tyrannical conquest of the nation, not about stopping a burglary.

Please also see

Justice John Paul Stevens Is Wrong About the Second Amendment, Again

@Nous and @Skwim

You are simply mistaken. It is the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is not associated with the right of self defense that is witless rubbish.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I can see the point you are trying to make, but doesn't adding all the words into the amendment you are, create a totally different thought and purpose than what the 2nd actually says?

I still can't see an argument against the actual verbage of it. If what you are saying is true, wouldn't the amendment read "the people's right to keep and bear arms for hunting and self defense shall not be infringed upon"?

What purpose in your senerio does mentioning a well regulated militia serve? And it is one sentence separated by a comma not two sentences or clauses. Doesn't that have something to do with how the idea is meant to be understood?

I agree with your idea that if "it" is ever interpreted the way it reads, it would not be necessary to repeal it as it would not guarantee rights of all people to keep and bear arms. The rest of your argument goes into current societal issues where rapists and thugs and murderes roam the streets. That was probably not the issue when the amendment was written. And as far as I knew, we have a National Guard in our state that the governor can call up in emergencies to protect the state. So far luckily only from natural disasters . But who knows, the way the current political system is evolving , we very well may need a well regulated militia in the future. Then people can grab some guns and train themselves up for battle. In the meantime, we still have a gun problem that has again faded from public debate until the next mass killing. It is remarkable how numb we have become to the repeated gun violence. What would you suggest as a solution?






I suggest you brush up on the history of the second amendment... in particular how and why it came to be. It has long been held that there is a natural right to self-defense, auxiliary to the natural and legal rights to life.
The English Bill of Right 1689 addressed the issue of the authority of the King to disarm his subjects.
The founders were well aware of this and well aware that the right to arms is a natural right of the people.

You ask why the founders didn't say, "Everyone has the right to defend themselves", or "Everyone has the right to hunt", or "Hand-guns may be used for this purpose and for that purpose and for this other purpose and for that other purpose", etc., etc. To which I refer you to the ninth amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The founders don't have to make an exhaustive list of reasons to justify the right to arms. It suffices for them to say it is a right and move on.

As to why they mention militia, the second amendment protects not only the right of people to arm, but it protects the right of the states to have organized militia. The government can't prevent the states from organizing their armed citizens. The reason for all of this goes back to the English Bill of Rights 1689 where the authority of King to disarm his subjects was addressed.



I'm not familiar with what every court has said about this, but to my knowledge every court in the United States affirms that every person has the right to self-defense and I am unaware of any court in the United States that denies this. The right to arms is a natural right of the people.



I understand why you regard militia as the topic of the amendment and you can even argue that militia is the main purpose of the amendment, but that does not in any way invalidate the language of the amendment or that the amendment states that keeping and bearing arms is a right. If the amendment were solely about militia, it would have sufficed to talk only about militia. It seems rather obtuse to read the first clause and disregard the second.



I have to disagree, the right to arms has always been argued as auxiliary to the right to self-defense.
Militia are also auxiliary to the that right. While the concern that the states would not be able to defend themselves was a real concern that does not in any way detract from the right of the people to self-defense.

I don't see where you get off saying that people can't defend their homes from burglary. Are you saying people are supposed to let burglars commit crimes in their homes?

I'm just trying to imagine someone telling a judge:
"Well, I told him to stop raping my wife, but he ignored me. I was forced to watch because I'm not a member of any militia and even if I were I don't have the right to stop someone from entering my home illegally to commit crimes. Obviously, I would've killed him if I was allowed to defend my home, but, you know, everyone is worried that some idiot is going to accidentally shoot himself... so we've all agreed that we should just let the government handle this sort of thing for us. After all, if everyone would just follow the law, then there never would have been a burglar in my house. And even if not everyone follows the law, statistics show that everyone is safer if they don't take action to defend themselves. Yes, my wife has been permanently traumatized, but I feel good knowing that my children didn't accidentally shoot themselves and that the government is going to take action against the burglar."

You might want to consider that you while you were reading the second amendment this extraordinary thing happened when you got to the word 'right'. Your mind leaped across it as if it did not exist and you told yourself, "This is really all about militia; people don't actually have a 'right'. This document I'm reading is actually the Bill of 'things that may be infringed'." It isn't often that I get to say a certain point of view is bull****.[/QUOTE]