Quote Originally Posted by Bren122 View Post
The second Amendment reads;
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it is clearly within the framers' mind that the right to bear arms derives from the notion that this right descends from the effectiveness of a militia- which paralels similar English legislation of the time. it should be noted that, technically speaking, the (English) British did not have a standing army until the 1870s- no such entity legally existed. where British and American practice diverged was in the 1800s pursuit of western exploration and colonisation by the US in the wake of the Louisiana Purchase; the Mexican and American War; and the Oregon Settlement. Militias were not feasible on the new frontiers but the personal right to self-defence against various agencies (Amerindians, rustlers, bandits) meant that maintenance of a right to bear arms no longer derived from keeping an effective militia. this required a change of thinking from that which had maintained in the 1770s when the constitution was originally written, largely inspired by English Enlightenment notions of political theory.
I am not arguing for a day to day re-interpretation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights. while the left is pushing a political agenda that claims, in part, to be the sole representative of progress, the right is stuck in the mud trying to present a united front and backing away from supporting any change. the moderate right needs to redefine itself as a supporter of sensible progress even if that means alienating its more radical members. then it can more effectively challenge these unnececessarily liberal interpretations of what progress actually means. using the constitution as a buttress against change, when it is clearly designed to be open to changes of interpretation and necessity, is simply playing into the hands of the liberals.
whilst the M303 is illegal, this is by no means the sole interpretation of a grenade launcher. a look at some of the ammunition types being developed in Europe and North America for even 5.56mm calibre weapons include several 'exploding' bullets. one bullet being developed for the .50in Barrett rifle, itself deadly in the hands of an expert to over 2 kilometres or one and a quarter miles, by a niche company include flechettes that deploy inside the body. to have to name every bullet or weapon that you want banned, as opposed to effects produced, means a greater focus is placed on a universal ban- which is precisely what happened in Australia.
Actually no. Thomas Jefferson stated "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Just because the Second Amendment happens to have a preamble doesn't diminish the fact that the granting of this right to the people is perfectly clear. When our Founders intended to specifically refer to the militia or the states, they used those words. Look at the Tenth Amendment, for instance: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Consitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It becomes even more clear when you look at other instances where the Founders used the language "the right of the people." Like in the First Amendment, for example: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Or, in the Fourth Amendment: "the right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The first clause of the Second Amendment, which discusses the necessity of a well-regulated militia, is a reason why the people have a right to arms. It's a perfectly good and sufficient reason, but it't not the only reason, and it doesn't change who has the right.

Consider this sentence:

"Being a fisherman, Joe needs to buy a boat"

Does that mean that Joe should buy a boat only if he fishes for a living? What if Joe also likes to water ski? Being a fisherman is a great reason for getting a boat, but it isn't the only reason and, in fact, it doesn't even have to be true.

Likewise, the militia clause of the Second Amendment doesn't have to be true for the rest of the amendment to stand. What if a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state? We are pretty secure and still (kind of) free these days, but we don't have a functioning state-militia system. Perhaps the Founders were wrong – maybe the only thing necessary to security is a nuclear-defense umbrella, a strong navy, and just plain good luck.

Does a constitutional right go away simply because one of its percieved benefits no longer exists? Of course not – no individual right depends on the government's actions. That's why the Declaration of Independence made clear that the rights we were fighting for were those we were "endowed with by our creator" instead of some elected bureaucrat.