Quote:
Originally posted by The_Dunedan
You apparently missed the part where I provided the pertinent ( read; 1789 ) definition of "well regulated." As long as the Militia ( as defined by the Militia Act and National Gaurd Act ) is functioning in proper order, it is, by definition, 'well regulated.'
The 2nd Amendment is no more vauge than any other; when it says "the People" it means The People: when other Amendments address the States ( 9, 10, etc ) they specify 'the States.'
How can you say that the "collective right" is the stronger, when the letters and diaries of the Founders make it abundently clear that they regarded the right to bear arms as a fundamentally individual one? Youir position is illogical and does not square with the facts; Federal Law provides for this, as does the Constitution and the words of the drafters therof.
|
Exactly how is a bunch of random people who never get together and who certainly never do anything together "functioning in proper order?"
There IS no order, and there IS no functioning in proper order because there IS no militia TO function in proper order.
I'm not for banning guns, but there are a lot of arguments for keeping them around that are a lot stronger than pulling out the tired old 2nd ammendment line.
As to how I can say the collective right is stronger, study the grammar. It says "The right of THE PEOPLE. . ." not "The right of THE INDIVIDUAL."
It specifically refers to a collective. People.