So, why are guns necessary?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Feel free to show me where I have expressed that opinion. Heck, point out where I have used the term "natural rights."

Don't mind me, I'll be waiting, eating a sammich.

But when you give up (or perform one of your re-readings of English where words mean new and interesting things), I'll just point out that if your arguments and reasoning were a tenth as strong as you think they are, you wouldn't need to misstate your "enemies" arguments to get through your day.

Listen, I'll concede the point that my assertion that "well-regulated" could have solely meant "well-equipped" was a false one. I am incorrect. The closest thing would be that "equipped" and "standardized" (with equipment suitable for national defense) would have been a primary component of "well regulated", but along side "controlled" in the way that I don't want it to mean. This point gets lost when you realize that the prefatory clause is not binding on the right to keep and bear arms, so the argument is academic as the lead-up to the right has been largely dismissed as merely an extremely important aspect, of many, to the right to keep and bear arms.

You've stated that this is your read and understanding of the amendment - that people who are members of the militia are the only ones who have a right to be armed and controlled by the government under 2a. Earlier, in prior threads, you have stated that it was merely one read, but not the most compelling or legally recognized read by a long margin. In these recent threads you seem to write off the right and to be looking for a way to denigrate and ignore a right recognized by the law and most Americans, due to some procedural drama in the Senate relating to an overplay of the hand of Democratic leadership (evidenced by the Failure to pass a bill with potential bi-partisan support CONTROLLED by Democrats).

Tom Coburn offered his hand in compromise. How did that offer go for him?