How Would You Answer This Argument Against the 2nd Amend.?

[Chew]

I love this exchange:

[Pedernal]

Had a client send me this over the weekend and to be honest, I'm not sure any amount of reply will change their mind, but I was curious to see how you guys would respond to this? I have my own thoughts about this, but I wanted all of your opinions first.

Quote:
Since the start of the 2nd amendment concerns "A well regulated militia" the rest of the text refers to the subject. Therefore, if you want a gun you MUST be a member of a 'well regulated militia'. If you aren't then you have no 'right' to a gun. Additionally, since the amendment was written in 1791 when it took an expert about 2 minutes to fire and reload, to adhere to the 2nd amendment, all assault weapons MUST be eliminated because they fire too quickly

How about pointing out to this chuck-wagon that rate of fire at the presumed rate of one shot per two minute is what was available to everyone at the time... To include thieves, bandits and tyrants... How else is the militia supposed to defend them selves against oppressive TYRANTS ( British royalty at the time) now a different administration

[twobittxn]

At the Wall put it rather well. I doubt I could improve on his answer.

There are reasons political discussions are banned from certain places. As already shown here, too many people are unable to keep emotion out of the argument. I also agree with your statement, I seriously doubt you will change his stance or even make a dent in it.

Using his assault weapon argument against him... that would be like saying the internet is not subject to free speech, or freedom of the press since it didn't exist then.

[bm22]

I would send atthewall's response. It is well written, to the point and not demeaning. :-)

[iamntxhunter]

You can't fix stupid so don't waste your time.

[iamntxhunter]

You can't fix stupid so don't waste your time.

Can he not understand a simple and well defined statement?

[kikn]

The supreme court has already ruled that on the issue of a well regulated militia. That anyone can be in a militia therefore anyone can own a gun in preparation.

A true militia can not be under control of congress aka, coast guard/national guard. Those are not the intended militias.

Intended militias are those created on a grassroots level to protect the people from tyrants in power, with no political control/affiliation to congress or higher level of government.

But like others have said you would be wasting your breathe and upsetting a client. Its best just to leave well enough alone. And when the zombie apocalypse comes well... you can draw your own conclusions from there...

[Neck]

I love this exchange:

That is AWESOME! Right-click save.

[tvc184]

Had a client send me this over the weekend and to be honest, I'm not sure any amount of reply will change their mind, but I was curious to see how you guys would respond to this? I have my own thoughts about this, but I wanted all of your opinions first.

The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is not part of the Second Amendment per se but is a preamble. It tells why they believe that the 2A is needed.

The rest of the 2A, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the actual law.

Just like the Preamble to the US Constitution is not the law but a basic laying out of why it was needed or wanted. The intent was for people to be freely armed because as we saw back them, you might need it for defense.

Some people think it says, "People that belong to a militia have the right to keep and bear arms".

If that was the intent, I believe that it would say so. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were well thought out and written and the preamble only to the 2A was not an oversight or misstatement. If they wanted only militia to have arms, they would have simply said so.

The militia statement was merely a preamble to a basic freedom and has not bearing on an individual's rights to bear arms.

[Txfire409]

it says the right of the "people", not the right of the "militia"

[tvc184]

it says the right of the "people", not the right of the "militia"

Yep, that is the shortcut version of my statement. I don't think that was accidental.

[Silent Assassin]

Let it go. Sometimes its better left unsaid. Can't change their mind no matter how blue we are in the face, they will still fight against us.

Until it happens one day, when its time to rise, they will realize what they really want from us. Then just maybe they will rise up with us or become slave to them.

[critter69]

Dont want to show up at a gun fight with a knife, would ya ?

[BBReezen]

I think I would reply... The 2A was put in place to ensure we "people" can defend ourselves against a tyrannical govt if it gets outta hand and tries to take away our right to freedom. If you would like, instead of using your right of free speech to explain why my right to bear arms should be infringed upon, move to a country where a tyrannical govt already exists and you will have no rights and see how it treats you. This is America, THE LAND OF THE FREE, and it will stay that way compliments of a "well regulated" militia of armed citizens.

[BETTERLUCKYTHANGOOD]

It will just be a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Same thing will happen when someone breaks into their house and kills them.