Thank you. :)
My argument goes to the underlying intent of the Founders, namely, the ability to defend against a despotic govt, (which was, understandably, the principal concern at the time).
Guns were sufficient for that purpose in the 18th century, but they clearly are not today. And thus we have a reason--a need even--to 'regulate.'
If 'arms means guns,' and if there is no regulation, or if technology outpaces such regulation, then the 2nd amendment becomes as ineffectual as our 'guns' do.
No, it doesn't, it says nothing about regulating militias.
It says.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, [that's the reason] the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. [people, infringed, that's the meat]
Rudy supporters seem to suggest Rudy disagrees. He hasn't said that, but that's OK. I he thinks the 2nd amendment isn't a personal right, he's in opposition to people from Dershowitz and Tribe on the far lefte to the Justice Department, that would be GWB's justice., in the middle and most of the right.
You might note the original wording of the amendment
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms
Note no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms was dropped. If you review the Congressional Record, you'll find it wasn't dropped for concerns about religion, rather because it would allow the government, by designation of a religion as opposed to bearing arms, could deprive the individual of this inherent right
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
Certainly the founders recognized the importance of the militia, but ther recognized the fundamental building block of the militia, the individual, and protected his rights.
That right's can be restricted, that's the real arguement. In my mind shall not be infringed is the test.
I don't think keeping arms out of the hands of felons infringes the right of the people. Rudy agrees.
I think keeping ugly arms, the assault weapon ban, does infringe, as does banning handguns.
Rudy would of course disagree with me. As he noted last week the test isn't infringement, a federal issue the President and Justice Department deals with, rather it's a local issue, cities and states can ban at their will.
In my view Rudy flunks this one.