Resurrecting the Anti-gun Militia Argument

Back in January 2013, I wrote an article attacking the notion that are founding fathers never intended for the 2nd Amendment to include anything other than the weapons that were known in there time The Second Amendment for Muskets? Today I'll be looking at what I call the "Militia Clause" argument, which was settled in the Supreme Court decision of Washington DC vs Heller, but like other anti-gun rhetoric it is and will continue to be resurrected from the dead hoping someone will listen. The following letter was written to the Santa Cruz Sentential Dec 18, 2013. It is a great letter as it not only contains, "Militia Clause" argument, but it also shows the real intention of the left is to disarm the entire citizenry.  

Tom Snell; Why is it that no one mentions the opening words of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..." Bearing arms was specifically so our nation could have a well-regulated militia, not so we could pretend that by owning lots and lots of guns, we can somehow defend ourselves from each other. Be careful gun owners -- the super wealthy gun industry wants you to be very scared so you will buy and they will profit. But I contend that more guns are more dangerous, not less so. To keep our communities safe, I challenge us all to have the courage to give up our guns with the possible exception of a hunting rifle. And for those people, they and their guns should be licensed and trained the way we license automobiles and require a periodic driver's test.

My response; Tom, why do people like you think you can logically define the contextual meaning of a word or phrase, in a vacuum of legal findings and historical context. This from the Case Brief  of the Holding of the Supreme Court case Heller vs Washington DC http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc..."The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  Further,  Scalia wrote for the majority,  "The prefatory clause'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms".

You can challenge Americans all you want, but you live in a cloistered bubble if you think gun ownership and the NRA are all about the super wealthy gun industry; the more the left wants to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans, the more guns they buy. Further most Americans believe that there are a lot more important issues than additional gun restrictions (gun restrictions always rate very low when the citizenry is polled about what they want from government http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.... Crime rates continue to plummet as do gun crimes, except in areas like Chicago and Washington DC where the local government have disarmed the citizenry yet ignore federal gun restrictions; in other words new gun restrictions are a solution looking for a problem. In California there are laws that allow the police to track down criminals and mental patients and take away their guns ; but these laws continued to be unenforced (they are backed logged to the tune of 20,000 illegal gun owners) as the legislature continues to come up with laws that further restricts firearms to law abiding citizens. http://articles.latimes.com/20...

More gun control is simply a liberal issue that does nor resound with most Americans; but they certainly don't like being lied to about their healthcare. If you want to argue an issue important to you, you should at least do a little research before you base an argument on the way you interpret some wording you really don't understand.