Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?
Reply to your post about regulations? Sure, I think there should be regulations. Such as:
Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.
This seems like reasonable regulations to me. Oh, wait, this is just common sense.
No, my post(s) about how the Second Amendment is demonstrably wrong on one count, and should therefore not be perceived as infallible in its wisdom.
i.e. It's wrong on one (major) point, so why should its other points be valid
Please, post a concise statement declaring exactly what the 2nd Amendment is wrong about and I will be happy to have a pleasant discussion about it with you.
Sure.
The 2nd Amend. states clearly that the aforementioned "well-regulated militia" is "... necessary to the security of a free state..."
I would like to point out that a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not, as the 2nd Amend. claims, necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.
Switzerland has a well-regulated militia, it is a secure free state.
Japan does not have a militia, and is a secure free state.
NB: Militia, in this sense, means any form of organised armed citizenry.
As we can see, a well-regulated militia is
not necessary to the security of a free state.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. is wrong in this sense.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. should not be taken as irrefutably wise.
Ergo, the non-regulation of guns shouldn't be considered wise.