Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
The first qualifies the second. It points to the intent of the framers, which was not to have a thousand jackasses with brand new guns running around LA shooting anyone they see.
|
and surely you have some backup proof for this ridiculous claim? show me through any type of historical document that this is what the intent of the framers was.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Speaking of reading comprehension, do we REALLY need to define "well regulated" for you? You seem to have trouble with the concept of "regulated." The number of hunting accidents and other accidental shootings each year tells us that gun ownership in this country is anything BUT well-regulated.
|
I can assure you that 'well-regulated' does not mean the national guard or a standing army. I've shown this many times and even defined 'well-regulated' according to the 18th century english dictionary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Once again you fail to read and understand what I wrote. I specifically said that the BOR does not TAKE AWAY the right to a gun. So for you to suggest that I did signifies either that you're not bothering to read my entire post, or that you're making stuff up in order to appear to be the winner of this little debate. Which is it?
You're falling into the same category as many vehemently pro-gun advocates. When someone points out that the 2nd does not GIVE the right, they automatically assume that person is trying to take that right away. That's a logical fallacy. I would hope debaters here on TFP could rise above that reactionary crap and actually read, and understand, what others are writing.
|
alright, i'll give you this point that I may be completely misunderstanding what it is you're trying to say regarding this. So far, what i've been reading from you is that the second amendment is not a definition of the peoples individual right to keep and bear arms, that it only belongs to a well regulated militia. The paragraph above now seems to indicate that you might actually believe that the individual right pre-exists? correct me if i'm reading you wrong on this.