This is why we need to ban guns!

[Parkbandit]

No it's a fucked up sentence because we all can not easily interpret it and understand exactly what is being said.

So, it is actually your position that the 2nd amendment is for organized militias and not for the citizens of the United States?

Seriously??

As for a reason given beyond national security, where is it?

To deter the government from becoming oppressive. I thought that was obvious.

[Thondalar]

To be fair, there is some amount of interpretation necessary in this, and all amendments, (which is a big reason why the Federalists were against such a silly notion in the first place) but for shits n' giggles, let's break it down. I'm going to use the original grammar as it was originally ratified by the States:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

This is the opening line, and arguably the most controversial. "What do they mean by well regulated? What do they mean by militia?" We have to color this in the context of the day, and even the reasons for the Constitution in the first place. The English Bill of Rights in 1689 had a very big influence on the 2nd amendment, which in it's case stated that the Crown could not disarm it's citizens without consent of Parliament. The framers sought to take this a step further, attempting to state clearly that "the government" had zero right to disarm it's citizens under any circumstance. As I've previously laid out in this thread, there is danger in specifying this, because it allows for ways around it...as we see now. Licensing, registering...it's basically impossible for a law-abiding citizen to own a gun in New York City, but somehow this doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment. But I digress...

"A well regulated militia"...there are two thoughts to this. Many would claim this shows a clear intent to license and register gun owners...that's regulation, right? You don't have to dig very deeply to see that regulation back then was different from now...the idea that the federal government could regulate gun ownership would be patently ridiculous, and there are volumes of written proof that this was not at all the Framers' intent. "Well...what other sort of regulation is there?" Well, regulation has many meanings...if we look at the etymology of it, 250 years ago it would be safer to define it as "to adjust to some standard" or "to put in good order"....not by government, but by the people. There can be no argument to the definition of "militia"...there are again volumes of writings that state quite clearly the people ARE the militia.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To me, this part is pretty clearly stated. "Shall not be infringed" are pretty strong words. There's no interpretation there. Infringed has a meaning, and that meaning is "To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate".

[Warriorbird]

To be fair, there is some amount of interpretation necessary in this, and all amendments, (which is a big reason why the Federalists were against such a silly notion in the first place) but for shits n' giggles, let's break it down. I'm going to use the original grammar as it was originally ratified by the States:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

This is the opening line, and arguably the most controversial. "What do they mean by well regulated? What do they mean by militia?" We have to color this in the context of the day, and even the reasons for the Constitution in the first place. The English Bill of Rights in 1689 had a very big influence on the 2nd amendment, which in it's case stated that the Crown could not disarm it's citizens without consent of Parliament. The framers sought to take this a step further, attempting to state clearly that "the government" had zero right to disarm it's citizens under any circumstance. As I've previously laid out in this thread, there is danger in specifying this, because it allows for ways around it...as we see now. Licensing, registering...it's basically impossible for a law-abiding citizen to own a gun in New York City, but somehow this doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment. But I digress...

"A well regulated militia"...there are two thoughts to this. Many would claim this shows a clear intent to license and register gun owners...that's regulation, right? You don't have to dig very deeply to see that regulation back then was different from now...the idea that the federal government could regulate gun ownership would be patently ridiculous, and there are volumes of written proof that this was not at all the Framers' intent. "Well...what other sort of regulation is there?" Well, regulation has many meanings...if we look at the etymology of it, 250 years ago it would be safer to define it as "to adjust to some standard" or "to put in good order"....not by government, but by the people. There can be no argument to the definition of "militia"...there are again volumes of writings that state quite clearly the people ARE the militia.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To me, this part is pretty clearly stated. "Shall not be infringed" are pretty strong words. There's no interpretation there. Infringed has a meaning, and that meaning is "To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate".

Not that I disagree with you on this particular issue (even though you oppose the Bill of Rights) but you're doing your "The Founding Fathers magically agreed and things weren't debated." standard again, which just isn't how it went.

[Thondalar]

Not that I disagree with you on this particular issue (even though you oppose the Bill of Rights) but you're doing your "The Founding Fathers magically agreed and things weren't debated." standard again, which just isn't how it went.

And you're doing your "Thond says the Founding Fathers didn't disagree" thing again. I've never once stated that, ever...quite the contrary. I would hope that my ability to carry an intelligent conversation about these topics would tip you off to some amount of personal knowledge on my part, at least enough for you to know that I would never make such an outlandish statement. They disagreed quite a bit, and if not for a certain eloquent few (Jefferson and Madison come to mind), this whole thing probably never would have made it past it's infancy.

So it's in no unclear terms, I will state again what I have stated before: There has never been a time, in this country nor any other, where the members of government have fully agreed on the course of any action.