DammitBoy
Member
I post on another site that has a vigerous debate always going on about the 2nd amendment. There is one poster there who posts the same argument over and over - here is the jist of his argument:
So what is your impression of this guys argument?
Is he nuts? Is he 100% wrong? Is he right?
Does anyone have a good argument to counter this person's hypothesis?
Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates a Militia, as being necessary to the security of a free State.
An Anarchy or Mob of individuals who keep and bear arms, may be denied and disparaged in their privilege and immunity to keep and bear arms, if required for the domestic tranquility or security of a State.
In cases of insurrection or rebellion, a Militia can be authorized to disarm an Anarchy or Mob of individuals who keep and bear arms, and are not part of a well regulated Militia.
It is not a collective right, for an individual to keep and bear individual arms. It is a States' sovereign right to ensure its domestic tranquility or security, according to its Constitution, within the confines of our federal Constitution.
Most of our States have inalienable or indefeasible rights clauses to forms of private property. It is usually up to the State to enforce that privilege and immunity.
An individual who keeps and bears arms and is in a well regulated Militia of such individuals, should be able to have recourse to the 2A and be exempt from State gun control laws.
The 2A only exempts those individuals who keep and bear arms and who are part of a militia of such individuals. Everyone else, (i.e. an anarchy or mob of individuals who keep and bear arms) is subject to State gun control laws in the State where they reside; and it can be considered part of the traditional police power of a State, to ensure its domestic tranquility and security.
So what is your impression of this guys argument?
Is he nuts? Is he 100% wrong? Is he right?
Does anyone have a good argument to counter this person's hypothesis?