In my opinion, the UN could have played a much better role in alleviating the anarchy that follows when states begin to fail. With a more US type of constitution, the UN could have simply sent in the ATF and solved a few minor problems. And then, requested money from the blue states to help out the red states.

Actually, though, my only argument is with the gun rights fanatics who don't believe in the responsibility that goes with gun ownership. The 2A expressly declares the intention for the right to keep and bear arms.

From a public safety standpoint, a well regulated militia of people who keep and bear arms would probably help in reducing the number firearm related accidents.

One doesn't say "The mouse ran past the house" when they mean something completely different. I'm sorry you disagree, but English Grammar doesn't work the way you are trying to make it, and it doesn't take much logic and reason to understand that principle.

__________________
"I miss the days when they made toys that could kill a kid."
- Jerry Seinfeld

You are correct in your statement. That is why the founding fathers expressly wrote in the well regulated part into the second amendment; to expressly provide a reason and some logic for the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of English Grammar.

Here is another analogy. A well educated electorate being necessary to the function of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed.

If anyone who owns and reads books is well educated, and the well educated are required to vote, then anyone who owns and reads books could be required to vote in order to ensure the necessary functionality of a free state. It would not require persons who do not own and read books to vote, since according to the logic of the statement they could not contribute, as well, to the functionality of a free state.

The Second Amendment does not grant the right to bear arms [or any right], its existence is assumed. There is no condition expressed or even implied by the Second Amendment, so it is specifically mentioned here for the sake of the militia mentioned in the subordinate clause.

In your example, the right to read books is assumed and is mentioned for the sake of the electorate. There is no condition set. If your statement had said "The right of the electorate to read books shall not be infringed," then that would be a totally different sentence.

You fail to realize that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant us rights .. it is a set of instructions that restricts the government.

__________________
"I miss the days when they made toys that could kill a kid."
- Jerry Seinfeld

Even if it is a subordinate clause, the reason for the legal right to keep and bear arms is implied. The 2A does not deny or disparage the right of the several states or the interstate to require the wellness of regulation of people who keep and bear arms. From this perspective, how can anyone argue that the government cannot require people who keep and bear arms to be well regulated, as in a militia of people who keep and bear arms?

Where in the Bill of Rights is the authority of government restricted in requiring a well regulated militia of people who keep and bear arms? If anything, the 2A clarifies the position of the government and its legal right to regulate well, a militia of people who keep and bear arms. By simply enforcing the 2A the government could reduce external costs while ensuring a well regulated militia of people who keep and bear arms.

Uhhh .. because the right to keep and bear arms already exists without the Second Amendment. You are missing the entire point of the Bill of Rights. It is not a restrictive document against the people, it tells the government what it cannot do to the people.

Now it is very clear that you do not understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

__________________
"I miss the days when they made toys that could kill a kid."
- Jerry Seinfeld

Are you implying that the government can't require people who keep and bear arms to be well regulated? I think I understand the purpose of the Bill of Rights. What I don't understand is why the government isn't being restricted by the 2A in its gun control efforts to only regulating people who keep and bear arms, as in a militia of people who keep and bear arms. In other words, if the 2A is supposed to limit government, then whence all other gun control legislation?

Jotathought, I've been following this back and forth for a while, I'm a little confused by this, apart from the Second Amendment, where does the right to keep and bear arms exist ?

Public sector interference (in the form of laws, regulations, red tape, etc) are derived from the social contract (e.g. the US constitution.)

Statism may or may not recognize natural rights depending on the social contract.

Do you have any understanding of language? I'm starting to doubt it. Not to be offensive, I've simply lost all faith in your ability to understand what you're talking about.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

English grammar matters quite a lot in terms of the meaning a sentence conveys.
In no way does the sentence you presented mean that the well educated are in any way required to vote. In no way does it possibly place ANY requirement upon the people.

Lets look at how you explained that. You said "If anyone who owns and reads books is well educated...". Thats a pretty big "if" there and a hell of an assumption. For example, my 3 year old daughter owns and reads books. Is she well educated? Hardly - she's only 3 for petes sake. Are you saying that because she owns and reads books that she is obligated to vote?

The only way one could interpret either sentence (the 2nd Amendment or your analogue) the way you have is to simply ignore the rules of grammar and sentence construction as well as the plain meanings of words.

Daniel, I am asking this question quite seriously: Is English perhaps not your primary language? If it is, how old are you?

I mean no offense, but either a lack of understanding of the English language due to it being perhaps a second or third language, or your being very young, are the only logical explanations for your misinterpretation. OK - there are other explanations, but i cant think of any way to express them which wouldnt be offensive.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

I agree with you that grammar has a lot to do with the meaning a sentence conveys. I would agree with the majority's laissez fair attitude toward the 2A if the founding fathers hadn't been so verbose in writing the second amendment. In other words, if the 2A was intended to simply recognize a legal right to keep and bear arms, why include the part about a well regulated militia? An amendment conveying the laissez fair attitude toward gun ownership would have simply said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regardless of what the state requires. Since that was not the case, my interpretation makes more logical, grammatical, and rational sense.

While you may be correct about the analogy from a very simplistic point of view, that analogy does not, hypothetically, prohibit the state from "regulating" people who own and read books to the point of requiring them to vote for the optimum functionality of a free state. In other words, are the 1A, 9A or 10A being infringed by the 2A in requiring people who keep and bear arms to be a part of a militia and well regulated? Since the 2A specifically mentions a logical and rational purpose for regulating well, and armed populace, and the constitution provides the legal mechanism for the various governments to implement wellness of regulation for people who keep and bear arms, it is quite logical to conclude that the 2A was a further clarification of those governments authority to implement wellness of regulation, instead of the current plethora of gun control laws.

The point to consider is that the 2A does not prohibit to the various governments the right to regulate an armed citizenry, as a militia of people who keep and bear arms. Are you implying that the 2A somehow denies the authority to the governments to regulate people who keep and bear arms? If that is your logical conclusion, then how do you explain any gun control laws at all?

Agreed. Either very young or non-English mother tongue (polite interpretations). I've been through a similar game with the same poster in the Philosophy section.

Well, I'm not young and English is my first language ( being from England )
and I'm inclined to the interpretation that the right to keep and bear arms is related to beloning to a well regulated militia.

Does it help if I am more fluent in English than Spanish?