I'm currently taking an American Government class. Today we talked about the second amendment. First he asked what the second amendment meant.  He called on me and I said "the right of the people to keep and bare arms," and he said I was wrong. Then he went on about saying how the second amendment  is useless in today's times because we have the army and national guard. Damn I was PISSED.   I didn't say anything else about it. What should I have said.


Rant over.

Don't fell bad. When the Cubans parachute into the midwest and wreak havoc he'll be wishing he had a gun, or 12.

Quoted: Title 10 Chapter 13 of the US Code: § 311. Militia: composition and classes Release date: 2005-07-12 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

But isn't it about the right of the PEOPLE?

Quoted: Quoted: Title 10 Chapter 13 of the US Code: § 311. Militia: composition and classes Release date: 2005-07-12 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. But isn't it about the right of the PEOPLE?

See the red part?  That's The People.

ALL of the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights.

Do you have a COLLECTIVE ONLY right to free speech?

Think about it.

I would have chimed up and told him he was wrong.

First, the amendment clearly states it's intent in the second -and OPERATIVE- clause.  The first, or 'militia' clause is a subordinate clause, and cannot affect or modify the meaning of the operative clause if the operative clause is CLEAR in it's meaning.  This principle is a tenet of the American law in regards to a body of law, and any introductory statement that could be used to affect the meaning of the body of law.  

I'd also mention that the 'militia' in the subordinate clause does NOT refer to a standing army or the National Guard, as neither existed at the time of the writing.  

I'd also remind him how the Founding Fathers intended the power to be inherent to the PEOPLE, and without arms, the people would have no power.  Also suggest he read the Federalist Papers.  

Quoted: What should I have said.

"Red Dawn, Asshat!"

Make him watch the movie and tell us how the Armed Forces will always be there.

Quoted: ALL of the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights. Do you have a COLLECTIVE ONLY right to free speech? Think about it.

Oh, and he also thinks the 1st ammendment only applies when you are on the floor of the senate (or house, I forget)

Quoted: ALL of the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights. Do you have a COLLECTIVE ONLY right to free speech? Think about it.

This is a good point to debate them on.  The rights protected in the BOR are INDIVIDUAL rights.  If one is an INDIVIDUAL right when it refers to 'The People', then 'The People' always refers to INDIVIDUALS.

Libtards seem to think what logically applies in one situation does not have to apply globally... they get to pick and choose what it applies to.

Quoted: Quoted: ALL of the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL rights. Do you have a COLLECTIVE ONLY right to free speech? Think about it. Good approach, but you'll get nailed using it. The militia is a collective, not an individual. You have to connect the individual to the militia.  If you try to separate them, you will just reinforce your opponent's point. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Nah, that's easy to defend.   The collective has a need - the militia providing for the security of a free state... and the Individual right that guarantees that the collective will exist.  

i would have walked out, never came back, and taken my failing grade like a man.

Several Points, most of which can be found in the US DOJ report.

(1) Militia is a term who's meaning has been altered over the years.  Today, its used to described any para-military group.  However, at the time of the founding it meant specifically all capable citizens bearing arms, which was a tradition of republics going back to Greece and Rome.  The Militia Act of 1792 gives a good definition of the contemporary understanding of the term militia.

(2) The "militia" clause is a prefatory clause, and such clauses were not read as limitations under the conventions of the day, but merely as explanations for why the right exists.  Thus, the militia purpose does not limit the RKBA.

(3) "Right" is another terms whose meaning has changed over time.  In enlightenment philosophy (such as that used by the founders) only individuals can have rights.  Government's don't have rights, they have delegated powers.  Nowhere does the constitution or BoR ever use the term rights when referring to governments, but always to people.  Today, of course, everyone and everything is a right, but that's not how the founders understood it.  

Supreme Court decision stating the 2A is an individual right, from Guncite.com:  (note the important part in red)

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)

This case dealt with whether nonresident aliens, located in a foreign country, were entitled to Fourth Amendment rights. The Court ruled they were not. In discussing the meaning of "the people" in the Fourth Amendment, the Court commented:

" '[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

Therefore the Court viewed "the people" in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments. Many "pro-gun" groups cite this case as resolving "any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right" (National Rifle Association, Fact Sheet: Federal Court Cases Regarding the Second Amendment).
However, the Court didn't discuss whether the militia clause is a limiting factor, and how it might restrict the people's right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, in U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit stated:

"Citing dicta from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 ... Hale argues that the Second Amendment protections apply to individuals and not to states or collective entities like militias. This argument is inapplicable to this case. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia ... Whether the 'right to bear arms' for militia purposes is [Page 24] 'individual' or 'collective' in nature is irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia. Id. at 1020."

The Supreme Court denied an appeal of Hale. For a brief criticism of Hale click here.
On a concluding side-note:

"Interestingly, the majority opinion's analysis of 'the people' protected by the Bill of Rights was an elaboration of a point made by the dissenting opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, when the majority had held that Mr. Verdugo was entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. When the Verdugo case went to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General's office quoted from Ninth Circuit's dissent, but used ellipses to remove the dissent's reference to the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court majority, of course, put the Second Amendment back in."
       --- The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases. By David B. Kopel. Forthcoming in the St. Louis University Public Law Review.

Quoted: Police, military, etc come to mind? Those have replaced the individual in providing for the security of society.

Tell that to the citizens of New Orleans.  

Another point to make:  Ask him how the 2A was written to apply to the National Guard, when the NG wasn't formed until 1903.  

Quoted: Another point to make:  Ask him how the 2A was written to apply to the National Guard, when the NG wasn't formed until 1903.

And is under Federal Authority (nominally under control of the state governor, but can be federalized at any time)

And operates on federal bases

And recieves federal pay

And uses federal weapons

The National Guard is not a militia under any proper understanding of the term.  More precisely, it would be 2nd tier federal reserve units.

Quoted:    I'm currently taking an American Government class. Today we talked about the second amendment. First he asked what the second amendment meant.  He called on me and I said "the right of the people to keep and bare arms," and he said I was wrong. Then he went on about saying how the second amendment  is useless in today's times because we have the army and national guard. Damn I was PISSED.   I didn't say anything else about it. What should I have said. Rant over.

You were tossed a softball and failed to make contact.

ps - that's not a rant.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Police, military, etc come to mind? Those have replaced the individual in providing for the security of society. Tell that to the citizens of New Orleans.   Good show. Now you then have to show that the citizen always has to be ready in the contingency of failure of the civilian authority to properly keep order. Keep in mind that your opponent will try to argue that the lesson is that the civilian authority needs to be strengthened, instead of what we all learned from it.

Riwanda.  The founders believed that a militia was necessary for the security of a free state.  2nd Amendment is a check ON the government, and as it would be an oxymoron for the government to check itself, the check must necessarily be non-governmental.  

I would have gone back to the roots of the Constitution.  The newborn Gov.org of the United States just came out of a revolution to throw the shackles of a tyrannical gov from our limbs.  The Constitution was written to spell out the structure of the Government.  The Bill of Rights ENUMERATED (LISTED--it did NOT GRANT) the rights to guarantee the people that the gov would not assume the tyrannical role they had just defeated.  The Second was written to specifically allow the people the tools to overthrow the government SHOULD it become tyrannical.


AFARR

You really need to ask him how he jumped to that conclusion. I see no mention of or the use of the words army and national guard in the second amendment. As for the use of militia as a substitute for militia national guard ask him how he explains that too. The national guard didn't come into existence until 1903 with the Dick Act. Does he suggest the founders were clairvoyant?

The founders stated many times in their writings the second amendment was specifically about those times when the government turns on the people. The only debate they really had about RKBA was whether it would have to be delineated since as a collective they took it to be a god given right. It was felt it was better to state the obvious since they were doing it already with other areas. Even Jesus advocated being armed.

Spend a few bucks and get this.  Then beat your instructor with it while asking where his fucking army and national guard are.

Quoted:    I'm currently taking an American Government class. Today we talked about the second amendment. First he asked what the second amendment meant.  He called on me and I said "the right of the people to keep and bare arms," and he said I was wrong. Then he went on about saying how the second amendment  is useless in today's times because we have the army and national guard. Damn I was PISSED.   I didn't say anything else about it. What should I have said. Rant over.

I had a piece of shit in HS try that with me.  I got back at her when she had us write a paper about gun control and I'm the only one who wrote a pro-RKBA paper.  I got a D because she didn't like my opinions, but well, fuck her.   Down with the libtard bastages, I say

Quoted: Quoted:    I'm currently taking an American Government class. Today we talked about the second amendment. First he asked what the second amendment meant.  He called on me and I said "the right of the people to keep and bare arms," and he said I was wrong. Then he went on about saying how the second amendment  is useless in today's times because we have the army and national guard. Damn I was PISSED.   I didn't say anything else about it. What should I have said. Rant over. You were tossed a softball and failed to make contact. ps - that's not a rant.

What should he have said, then ?  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:    I'm currently taking an American Government class. Today we talked about the second amendment. First he asked what the second amendment meant.  He called on me and I said "the right of the people to keep and bare arms," and he said I was wrong. Then he went on about saying how the second amendment  is useless in today's times because we have the army and national guard. Damn I was PISSED.   I didn't say anything else about it. What should I have said. Rant over. You were tossed a softball and failed to make contact. ps - that's not a rant. What should he have said, then ?

yes, please tell.

The Dept. of Justice has decided that it IS an individual right. So, there you have a Gov. agency's ruling vs. Prof. Moonbat. Ask him how the DOJ could have ever made such a ruling.

It's pretty simple to shoot people like this down. The problem is that if they are you prof., your grade can suffer.
I had a history prof. argue with me about this piont last year. I argued him to a standstill, and he actually conceded the point. I was very worried about my grade because he is very opinionated, and loves to rant about his opinions. He is very leftist by the way. Not only did he not lower my grade, but he seemed to have more respect for me after that little discussion, and on the last day of class exlplained how todays students aren't active in their education, and how they have no passion about their beliefs. He went on to praise students that argued their positions in class while looking right at me. Then he called everyone else a sponge head.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:    I'm currently taking an American Government class. Today we talked about the second amendment. First he asked what the second amendment meant.  He called on me and I said "the right of the people to keep and bare arms," and he said I was wrong. Then he went on about saying how the second amendment  is useless in today's times because we have the army and national guard. Damn I was PISSED.   I didn't say anything else about it. What should I have said. Rant over. You were tossed a softball and failed to make contact. ps - that's not a rant. What should he have said, then ?

uh, any of the numerous points that have been cited in this thread:

individual vs collective rights
current DOJ position
the definition of militia
the linguistic nuance of the text
Federalist papers

Just as Larry Elder got Alan Dershowitz to admit in his film, "Michael and Me", the Second Amendment is an individual right just like the First Amendment. And it is not about hunting, or the right to hunt, it is all about the right to protect yourself from enemies foriegn and domestic. With the domestic part being primarily a Government out of control or a tyranny. And also note that the 2nd Amend does not specifically say gun or rifle, it says "Keep and Bear Arms" which includes just about anything that can be fired whethed it is carried, pulled or flown.

Get yourself a copy of Michael and Me and show it to the class or maybe Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" episode on Gun Control which is entertaining as well as extremely informative.

www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

www.bu.edu/law/faculty/papers/BarnettR071603abstract.html