THE 2nd AMENDMENT - WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO MEAN

[Saint Guinefort]

You want to stop a murderer? Shoot back.

[Into the Night]

Perhaps the Constitution’s greatest quality lies in its ability to mean different things to different people.

WRONG. It is very clearly written.

Whether the framers intended the document to be ambiguous or not, the vague wording of the Constitution ensured it would remain relevant for centuries after its creation.

WRONG. It is very clearly written. You are just discarding it.

Surely no framer envisioned the invention of the automobile–

Irrelevant.

let alone that his document provided the proper legal mechanisms to ensure automobile safety,

No, it didn't.

to construct a system of national highways for its use,

It did.

or to regulate its emissions.

No, it didn't.

Yet, the ability of the Constitution to mean different things to different people comes at great cost.

No. You don't get to discard the Constitution by 'interpreting' it.

Disagreements regarding the meaning of a passage, phrase, or general spirit of the Constitution have and continue to create political and social discord.

No. People like that discard the Constitution in favor of an oligarchy creates political and social discord.

The current political controversy surrounding the gun culture in the United States involves the Second Amendment. Gun rights advocates largely ignore the clause before
the comma. They simply emphasize the remainder of the sentence, that people – and, in their mind, private citizens – have the right to bear arms.

Repetition fallacy. You do not have to be a member of a militia to be people.

Supporters of gun control disagree.

Because you discard the Constitution.

They argue that the first portion of the sentence is the purpose of the amendment; the framers sought to protect the collective right of the people to form a
militia.

The people do not have the right to form a militia. The States do though. They have the right to self defense, just as every individual does.

There is no individual right to bear arms, they allege;

Yes there is. Discard of the Constitution.

so, the government can regulate and even prohibit gun ownership.

Unconstitutional.

The individual and collective rights interpretations of the Constitution divide the nation,

No. People like you discarding the Constitution divide the nation.

resulting in numerous Supreme Court cases,

The Supreme Court has no authority to change or interpret the Constitution. See Article III.

political action committees, lobbies, and a host of scholarship concerning
what the founding fathers intended.

You don't get to speak for the dead. The Constitution and only the Constitution is the authoritative reference of the Constitution.

Unfortunately for gun rights activists, historical evidence provides no basis for an individual right to firearms.

Lie.

A plain reading of the Second Amendment itself,

Discarding it is not 'plain reading'.

along with an examination of the debates during the drafting of the Constitution and the amendment’s ratification show little concern for private firearm rights.

False authority fallacy. The Constitution is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution.

Instead, what routinely surfaces in arguments between Federalists and Anti-Federalists is a concern over standing armies, the role of the militia, and determining how the federal government should exercise military power.

Nah. You just discard the Constitution.

James Madison introduced the Second Amendment to placate various fears regarding the military, the balance of power between the federal and state governments, and the use of standing armies.

You don't get to speak for the dead.

Anti-Federalists were not clamoring for an individual right to gun ownership.

You don't get to speak for the dead.

Proponents of an individual right to bear arms routinely use Anti-Federalist writings to buttress their argument,
which leaves the impression that Anti-Federalists advocated an individual right to firearm possession.

Lie. The Constitution is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits any law that infringes the right for States to form a militia to defend themselves, or that infringes the right for any person to defend himself by owning and carrying any weapon, including any gun. This is what the Constitution itself says. It is very clear. You are just discarding it.

The debates regarding the Constitution demonstrated that the role of militias and the creation of standing armies concerned both Anti-Federalists and Federalists.

Straw man fallacy.

When conservatives swept into power with the Ronald Reagan presidency, it became popular for many of them to advocate a “return” to the Constitution that the founding fathers intended.

False authority fallacy. Discard of history. Discard of the Constitution.

Part of this included a pro-gun agenda that rewarded the National Rifle Association – strong backers of the Republican Party. In this interpretation, the Second Amendment served as proof that the founding fathers intended for private citizens to have access to firearms free from government interference.

The NRA isn't the Constitution. False authority fallacy.

The reasoning used by many conservatives relied upon originalist arguments. The founding fathers, conservatives alleged, intended for the Second Amendment to provide the right of gun ownership to private citizens. Indeed, it is impossible to discuss the Second Amendment without engaging in some sort of originalism. In its simplest form, originalism is the process of determining what the framers meant in drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is an incredibly difficult process, one that many historians struggle with. Due to the reverence many Americans have for the founding fathers, it is a powerful tool in any argument to claim that the founders intended for guns to be available without government interference.

You don't get to speak for the dead. False authority fallacy.

So far you have denied most of the Constitution, including Articles I, III, and V, and the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments.

[Into the Night]

It doesn't even make any logical sense that the Constitution provides a clause for armed revolution,

Did you forget the Revolutionary war????!?

but that remains a myth espoused by gun-rights’ advocates.

No. The Revolutionary War is no myth.

It is foolish to think the founding fathers would establish a government only to provide for its undoing by violent armed mobs.

Did you forget the Revolutionary War?

In fact, the militia is responsible for suppressing riots and insurrections in the Constitution.

Constitutions don't right or are an insurrection.

[Into the Night]

Okay, twit. Stand there and let them shoot YOU.

[Saint Guinefort]

Okay, twit. Stand there and let them shoot YOU.

Nah, I just think it's funny to hear such "big talk" from people. It's hilarious. Like you're some kinda double naught spy James Bond. LOLOL.

[Into the Night]

Nah, I just think it's funny to hear such "big talk" from people. It's hilarious. Like you're some kinda double naught spy James Bond. LOLOL.

It doesn't take a James Bond to shoot back, twit.