Ah, MT.. you're dodging the issue. The 2nd itself stands; it has merely been chipped away at by folks with an agenda that refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
Let common sense be your guide:
1. Look at the writings about personal arms by the very folks that planned and fought the Revolution, wrote the Declaration of Independence, wrote and voted on the Constitution, wrote and voted on the Bill of Rights. That evidence is undeniably clear... to say other wise is foolish.
2. Look at the way Madison presented the 2nd to the House of Represenatives. It couldn't be more clear.
3. Look at the actual 2nd. Only quibblers would argue with the meaning.
The definition of "militia", at that time and at the present time is not in doubt. Further, you have writings of those there at the time that tell you what they meant by "militia". See Richard Henry Lee.
Further, there are definitions of "arms" from that time that are clear.. see Webster.
So, the only folks that would argue this are the folks that would defend the parsing of "is" into a new and twisted meaning; in short, people not worth knowing.
4. Consider Madison's later commentary that he felt the Bill or Rights wasn't really necessary.. that the Constitution already covered these items sufficiently. Madison clearly thought that the Right to Bear Arms was so intrinsic, so universally understood, that it didn't even need to be enumerated. Obviously, he was wrong. Without the Bill of Rights even the things covered by the 1st would have been seriously compromised by now.
5. Look at the State Constitutions of the 46 states that have very similar clauses to the 2nd.
So now you want to "back door it" instead of meeting the issue head-on. To wit: "Some gun control laws have passed. What infringement on the 2nd has been overturned?"
I don't think anyone has made the case that the 2nd hasn't been infringed upon. But that in no way makes the 2nd ambiguous or invalid.
Why can you not yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire? Does this infringement invalidate the entire First Amendment? Of course not.
Doesn't this seem to be "abridging the freedom of speech" guaranteed in the First? So, does this mean the First is "confusing" or "ambiguous? Why haven't these type of restrictions been struck down? Is there room for argument on the First?
I feel only the deliberately obtuse, those with an agenda against firearms can find the 2nd ambiguous given the five items I started with.
But thanks for the interesting discussion (you have to be playing Devil's Advocate here... you're smart enough to evaluate the historical evidence that's available from the founders. I hope.
)
