Oh but I most certainly DID debate the 2nd Amendment, I showed you where Founding Father Madison wrote Federalist 46, and explained what was meant in quite specific detail, to which you never responded and continue to ignore. I've even explained why I believe you continue to ignore the Federalist Papers, it's because you lack the intelligence to comprehend what they are saying. I've gone so far as to break down the sentence for you, and demonstrate how it can't infer any federal obligation or authority to 'regulate' and still conform to logic and proper grammar. None of these measures seem to be working on you, as you defiantly insist you are right and refuse to acknowledge the mounting evidence to the contrary.
I really don't understand your argument here... what kind of document SHOULD it be? A State of Idaho Document? A King of England Document? The Constitution doesn't grant authority or power to the government by virtue of being a "federal" document. "A well regulated militia" does not read "A well federal-regulated militia!" The responsibility for regulation falls with the states and people who formed the militia, not the federal government, they are expressly prohibited from infringing on this right, according to the last part of the sentence.
But it doesn't give the federal government the power to infringe with regulation. This is where you misunderstand the word "regulated" and assume it means something it doesn't. In this context, it means "well-outfitted" or "well-equipped" or "well-maintained with regularity." The responsibility for this, lies with those responsible for the militia, not the federal government, who is forbidden from infringing on this right. YOUR interpretation seems to give federal government the power to render an inalienable right, malleable, dependent upon the discretion of the federal government. How can this contradiction stand? How can government have the power to control a right that no one controls? This is the simple question Madison asked, I've asked, Damo has asked, and you have avoided answering.
No, "regulated" is the word YOU are having trouble with. I am well aware of gun regulations, we have had those for many years in this country, in every state, we require background checks and have all kinds of restrictions on gun ownership. No one I know of is proposing we do away with all the gun laws! The shooter in CT didn't follow our gun laws! The shooter in Aurora, didn't obey our gun laws! There is no law you can pass that criminals are going to obey! Nothing you can ever do, will ensure that guns never fall into the wrong hands....ask Eric Holder!
And that is your right.
