It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Not at all, both reasons are equally important, of course. The necessity to be able to repel and defeat domestic standing armies, however, naturally would require the people to organize without sanction. Thus is the point of contention I am arguing here. Not only is the wording of the second amendment clear on this, the implications of its wording are as well.
originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Gryphon66
See my reply to rocker 2013 for my main argument.
Noted and agreed, as I am sure you will argue, that there are likely laws and case law that contradict that simple interpretation. Throw those links up here too, please. Quotes are fine too, if you want to. I'm okay with being contested in my argument from that point of view.
The simple interpretation that is my main argument is still just as obvious today as it would have been the moment the first American laid eyes on it. It is plainly stated in the wording, as I've argued. It is a self evident argument, to anyone who reads and understands it. It is clearly defined in the wording, whether there are present laws or case law to the contrary or not.
No, it isn't. You're making one of the most blatant appeals to authority I've ever witnessed ... your own.