Martian

I have no interest in debating gun control laws with Americans. So long as you keep it to yourselves, I don't really care what you do with your guns. I will, however, debate logic.

willravel's wikipedia quote highlights an important aspect of this statement, which is that it consists of two separate and distinct thoughts that have been amalgamated. The wikipedia article designates these the justification clause and the operative clause, which is quite serviceable.

The justification clause:

The operative clause:

The justification clause exists to explain why the right is necessary, and does not actually enumerate any legal rights itself. It's actually quite superfluous from a strictly logical standpoint, although that isn't to say that it's useless; understanding the reasoning behind a law allows those who follow it to evaluate it independently, rather than following it blindly or ignoring it. Regardless, we can look at is as more of an appendix, a tangential thought related to the right itself. The operative clause is what defines the legal right...


...and makes no distinction based on membership within a militia, prior history or any other factor. Note that this means that the second amendment is not currently being followed to the letter, as I believe there are laws in place restricting ownership of firearms based on age, mental status of for other reasons that are not mentioned within the original amendment.

Intent is insubstantial and ephemeral. Unless it is explicitly stated, attempting to argue the basis of intent is pointless. I agree with Baraka_Guru that the second amendment as it currently exists is poorly structured, but I disagree with his assertion that it's unclear. It seems perfectly clear to me. According to what I've seen, the real problem people have with the second amendment is that it's unrealistic. It places no restrictions whatsoever on the right to keep and bear arms, while even the most hardcore gun advocates seem to admit that there do need to be at least some restrictions. No one, for example, advocates maintaining this right for individuals with a history of mental illness, and not very many would advocate maintaining it for ex-convicts.

A more profitable line of inquiry would seem to me to be whether or not the second amendment is still applicable. Can a well regulated militia still be considered necessary to the security of a free state? Indeed, could a well regulated militia still effectively defend that security if necessary?

Not that I expect anybody to seriously consider these questions. It seems to me that both sides of this debate have become too enamoured with their perception and vilification of 'the other side' to really think about any of this in productive terms. Nobody's interested in compromise any more; a grey issue has been polarized into black and white, and neither side is being particularly realistic about it. In all fairness, it's been my experience that this is nearly inevitable when discussing controversial issues with large populations.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame