I routinely go on liberal blogs and debate the insanity. I've been doing it for years. Some of their favorite elements to debate are "Militia", "Regulated", and "Infringed". Let's take a look at the meaning of these words in the context of the time and manner in which they were used along with legal precedence that has been established.
Militia - it is commonly debated by antis that the militia is the military, or at least now that we have a military it is irrelevent. Not so. By definition:
mi·li·tia (m-lsh) n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
The definitions above make it clear that it is ordinary citizens, not professionals, not part of a regular army, and the whole body of physically fit civilians. It is, we the people.
Regulated - one of their FAVORITE contentions is that this implies regulations, or laws, or limits in which the government places upon the militia. Well, in the context of the time and use of the word (and we'll see next in case law), this is actually referring to the intent that the militia is to have armaments in like manner to a regular army. Well Regulated meant well armed not well governed. Remember, they are not professionals or a regular army...not under the control of the government.
In United States vs. Miller 307 U.S.174 (1939) in which Miller was arrested for carrying a sawed off shotgun without a stamp and tax paid required under the NFA of 1934. The judge ruled in Miller's favor citing the second amendment words for word. The US appealed and Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
It seems clear that the opinion is that the 2A ONLY protects such miltary-type weapons appropriate for a militia and make it efficient. The intent seems to be that the ordinary people have arms consistent with or at least comparable to the military weapons in order to be efficient and effective.
1.Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2.Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
As we see today, people think these arbitrary limits do not INFRINGE since it is not banning ALL guns. The definition seems to imply that one does not have to completely ban something for it to limit, or, infringe.
These are just some favorite sticking points with anti-gunners with regard to components of the Second Amendment, and hopefully this will give some analytical viewpoints to debate their postitions.