Can you be a Progressive Democrat and still the support the Second Amendment?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

86. As to the points you raise and a thanks again for the polite exchange

1) & 3) That same Constitution, of which the 2A is a part, names the President as

Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

It seems contrary to the position of there being no standing army to name a commander of said army.

2) It was intended originally that service in the organized militia would be compulsory. That is no longer the case. It was intended that those recognized as people (who possessed rights) were at all times part of the unorganized militia. In the vernacular of the day, one meaning of well-regulated was efficient. Being denied the ability to keep and bear arms does not serve to enhance one's efficiency in their use.

4) The term "defense" does not appear in the 2A at all. The announced purpose of the militia is SECURITY. I claim the 2A protects the RKBA, as it says in the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the various militias may not be subjugated and disbanded by the government in favor of their own professional armies or mercenaries. A militia of the people is loyal to the people. Pros and mercs are sometimes more loyal to whoever signs the checks. The existence of a need for a militia does not serve to limit a right expressed in the context of a means to protect the existence of that militia.

By the principle of In pari materia interpreting the 2A ought to be done in respect to the other 9 amendments in the BoR. Their purpose is quite clear from their texts and the preamble, which is the securing personal rights.

5) If you believe that somehow our individual and national interest is served by only allowing arms to those physically fit for service, I further hold by analogy that it would be by the same logic to say we are better served by letting only those with IQs over 100 vote.

Expressing a state and national purpose for a basic right does not serve to limit that right to be exercised ONLY that purpose.