callmeslick wrote:actually, as I pointed out before, any reading of the words will tell you that the Amendment gives the citizenry the right to bear arms(actually prevents such arms from being prevented from having them) FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of enabling militias to be formed when needed. Which, in the context of the times, made sense. Now, it makes no sense whatsoever, as we don't rely on militias at all for defense.
Your interpretation of the rights of citizens being limited to, and wholly dependant on, the substance of the example stated in the 2nd Amendment is EXACTLY why the 9th Amendment was put in. To make it clear that the kind of interpretation of our rights...all our rights...the bulk of them not listed anywhere...that ill-conceived interpretation that you offered will not be used to reduce the individuals rights.
Some of the founders said we don't need a bill of rights because the federal government can only do the specific things that are listed and otherwise all rights are belonging to the people. Thankfully some of them were more prescient.
Madison said in his speech at the introduction of the Bill of rights:
"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse."
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is basically a set of rules and restrictions set up to restrict and control Government NOT the people as your interpretation depends.
This is a common theme among the founders comments and can be seen in the structure and core composition of the documents.
The "the great residuum" of rights are retained by the individual. Therefore the example of being able to form up a militia is not the only legitimate reason the individual has to claim the right to keep and bear arms. It is simply an example of the importance "inserted for greater caution".
That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution.
"those clauses" being the listed rights in the Bill of rights...
So just because the example of a right to bear arms to form a militia is listed, there is no new power given to the government to otherwise take away the right to keep and bear arms for any other purpose. The right to keep and bear arms was so fundamentally important, as free speech, right to assembly, etc. as to be pointed out, inserted for greater caution. Pointed out to the government in anticipation of it wrongly attempting to interfere with our liberty.
slick you have adopted an interpretation of the documents that serves your political ideology but it does not pass the test of the actual evidence.
