[QUOTE=lowbrass]
It’s not my point, it’s the pro-gun argument. Your side is arguing that “A well-regulated militia being necessary…” is merely an explanatory clause, and doesn’t affect the legal ramifications of the amendment. In other words, the argument is that it’s legally superfluous.
Please try to read my posts more thoroughly. Don’t latch onto one word and make assumptions about what I said. I argued that the right exists only to the extent that one is a member of a state militia. That’s a qualified right, as opposed to an absolute right where anyone can own any kind of gun for personal use. You’ve strayed completely away from my argument.
Yawn… How typical. You just can’t have a discussion without being condescending and failing to acknowledge that 2 sides of the issue exists. If someone disagrees with you, it must be that he is ignorant, and you are so much more educated. How arrogant.
[/QUOTE]
Is the explanatory clause legally superfluous? Absolutely NOT.
Instead, it helps define what arms we are discussing. In the classic US v Miller case, the Supreme Court told the two sides to go away and come back with an arguement of whether or not a sawed off shotgun qualified as a militia weapon. Miller died before his second date, and his attorney didn’t bother to finish up the process.
FYI -a sawed-off shotgun is an excellent militia weapon.
So, gun nutz such as myself tend to see the explanatory clause as a way of specifying what the writers meant by arms. They did NOT mean hunting arms, they meant militia arms.
As for calling it an explanatory clause - that is grammar, as taught in English programs. An explanatory clause is secondary to the declarative clause.
Finally, arrogance. I will state that the vast majority of the time those who are anti-gun are poorly educated on the subject. This is natural. Unless they are employees of the Brady Center, they do not spend much time on the subject. They simply feel that guns in our society are bad.
Gun Nutz, however, spend weekends with guns at the range. They spend thousands of dollars on their firearms in both purchase, maintenance, and ancillary expenses such as targets, reloading equipment, carrying cases, etc. They also hang out with other gun nutz. OF COURSE we are better read on the subject than the average anti-gun individual. We like to read books on guns, we read gun websites, we watch the history and discovery channel specials on guns, we join gun organizations, etc.
We can also spot the uneducated (on this topic) anti-gunner very easily. First, the amateur anti-gunner will make a statement about assault rifles. Typically this will follow with a quip of, “who needs a machine gun to hunt deer?” At this point the anti-gunner has shown their complete lack of knowledge.
As to your complaint regarding talking points - it is our way of saving some time. You see, we have had this arguement many many times. It has been with friends, co-workers, and at community meetings. It has also been on the net. After awhile some of us can simply re-write what we have done many times in the past in our effort to help convince just one anti-gunner to re-think their position. It is not parroting the NRA per se, just us once again listing out the various arguements.
When someone tells me that we should get rid of guns, I usually ask them what perspective are they coming from? Is it one of “the 2nd doesn’t apply to you, just to the National Guard?” Is it, “Guns make our nation less safe?” Is it, " The rest of the civilized world has banned guns?"
Each one of those triggers a different response. If someone comes at me with a new reason to ban firearms, I will listen. I just haven’t heard a new arguement in a long time.
You shoot at targets to practice learning where to shoot a human being to kill them.
