Replies

Someone can be mostly rational but still have irrational views. Pointing out a irrationality to an otherwise rational person is the best way for them to see the obvious flaw in their thinking. How does your theory work that pointing out the irrational quality of an argument gives "ammunition" to the other side?

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.

I've pointed out that "collective rights" is a concept at odds with individual liberty. The 2nd amendment is clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" any argument that claims that it doesn't mean exactly this, is irrational at best. Typically arguments against the plain meaning of the 2nd amendment are based on deception.

Do you believe that the second amendment means that the government can not infringe on the people right to keep and bear arms?

A well sharpened pencil 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 organized filing cabinet 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 oiled machine 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 bandaged exit wound being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A prefatory clause is not a modifier. It just gives a "reason for what follows". Not the only reason and not a condition to be met before the next phrase could be construed as true.

Yes, Socialists (liberals, gun-haters, or whatever other name indicating their true nature) have tried to use the Militia clause before. It's stupid to play into their arguments out of either fear or political expediency.

We're right, they are wrong. It really is that black and white.

FWIW, the collective rights arguments are based on a number of fallacies. Most of the collective rights proponents are under the mistaken belief that "militia" is something like a state or national guard unit. Comes as a surprise that "militia" is that body of the public that is physically capable of bearing arms. There is no "civilian/non-civilian" distinction, nor any sort of "authorized [by the state] to bear arms" limiting factor.

I accept that other people have the opinion that the collective rights theory is correct, but I also find those people intellectually dishonest. If their mind ain't straight, they ought not be trusted. I won't trust them, personally, with anything I care about. Doesn't mean we can't be friends, but I won't give an intellectually dishonest person my respect.

In the real world, certain firearms (such as a 105mm howitzer) by certain people (those out on bond, etc) yes. The potential destructive power of modern weapons such as a howitzer or M60 create real world problems even the most intelligent and astute founding fathers could not have foreseen

That is not unusual or restricted to firearms. For example, what constitutional guarantee do we have of freedom of the news on TV and radio. We have constitutional guarantees of freedom of Th's PRESS but t
Tv doesn't use presses..... Nor do we on FR The courts have changed the meaning of “press” to mean all media.

Regarding the “who” issues, I believe certain people, criminals included, give up certain rights (voting, firearms possession, etc) long after any jail sentence has run it's course.

I realize that is not the absolutist Position many here advocate, but it is my personal belief.