Support NeoGAF

[kame-sennin]

By the nature of being in a militia. I wholly disagree with it being an individual right, regardless of that reading.

This is circular logic. If you live in a state where the local militia has lapsed (low membership, poorly maintained weapons) and a crisis occurs, the community has to be able to mobilize quickly and reform the militia. If individuals aren't allowed to own firearms, that wouldn't be possible.

You're saying the same thing. If the well regulated militia is not part of the right right to keep and bear arms, it's entirely unnecessary to mention. If the reason isn't important, there's no reason to mention the reason at all.

Again, the first amendment doesn't bind us with anything, but we can't still yell "fire" in a theater. Yet an amendment that is explicit in its terms as to how we have it provides for no bounds as to how we have it? Sorry, I'm not siding with Scalia on this one.

The militia is the justification for our right to keep and bear arms. If we can not possess firearms, the ability to form a militia is greatly diminished.

You also ignored the quotes from the authors who explicitely stated the need for individual gun ownership. The whole thing comes down to protection against tyranny:

While both Monroe and Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[danwarb]

Makes it easy to know which states to avoid.

 

[HyperionX]

Eh, that's the point of trying to view these laws, amendments, rights within modern day lenses no? People always have broad readings of the laws. It's why every decade or so, there's always new rulings, new challenges.

As it is, gun control or gun laws won't get anywhere unless it's at the federal level and applied uniformly to all states.

Thing is, in a few decades from now, this ruling will be considered as laughable as the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. It's important to realize that the "modern" interpretation is not necessary better than the past, nor even the result of rational thinking.