It is apparent you think you have come up with an ingenious line of questioning that will "prove" once and for all that there is no right to bear arms because a well-regulated militia wasn't involved.You're probably right. And you're also an arrogant pretentious fucking prick who I would like to punch in the fucking face given the opportunity.
Do you really think this approach hasn't been tried before? By minds much smarter than yours? It has been. And it didn't work for them either.
As the old saying goes, your arguments are so old, I've forgotten why they are wrong.
But, to humor you, I will answer your silly questions:
1. Was this kid who shot the 6 year olds a member of the well-regulated militia that the 2nd Amendment explicitly refers to?
No, he wasn't.
2. If not, how does the 2nd Amendment apply to protect his possession of the weapons he murdered these 6 year olds with?
It doesn't. They weren't his weapons. He stole them from his mother. The 2nd Amendment does protect her right to own them, however. See below.
3. If so, did the ability of this kid to get these weapons that he shot the 6 year olds with satisfy the "well-regulated" requirements of the 2nd Amendment? Or was his ability to obtain these weapons and to murder these 6 year old kids not "well-regulated'?
No need to answer. I said it didn't protect his right to possess weapons he stole.
There now. Feel better? And what exactly do you think you accomplished?
There is another old saying that applies to what you are trying to do: "I can win any argument if you let me ask the questions."
You are trying to confine us to "yes" and "no" answers to questions that you have designed in such a way that we will have no choice but to conclude there is no right to bear arms.
It's like the classic example of a lawyer who demands a witness give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" There is no good answer to that question. A "no" means you are still beating her and a "yes" means that you used to beat her, but not any more.
Well, this isn't a courtroom and we aren't witnesses that can be browbeaten by slanted questions.
So, the answer to your question is that membership in a militia is NOT and NEVER has been a requirement to bear arms. You have assumed something in your question that is NOT true and you trying to force us to accept it. But we don't have to.
I don't have time to review the entire constitutional history of the 2nd amendment, but the case of Heller vs. Washington DC pretty much put your arguments to rest. Here is a good summary from one of the links posted above:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3
"However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.
"In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.
"The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.
"Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes.
"In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
"The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said above, your arguments are so old, I've forgotten why they are wrong.
Your attempts to define what "well regulated" means and what "militia" means are wrong. Therefore, your argument, such as it is, is also wrong. Originally Posted by ExNYer
They're continuing to bury those kids today. Hope you feel good about your right to bear arms you smug fucking cocksucker.
