1. The Constitution of the United States says under Amendment II, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Therefore individual citizens are assured of the right to keep and bear arms in their homes and on their person for their private use. Is there a logical fallacy involved in this argument and if so, what is it? In either case (yes or no) state your reasons for your answer.
4. At least one site available on the Web offers over thirty different "logics." Since all of these cannot be introduced in a single statement, a limited approach is necessary. Create an "argument by analogy" which may help to demonstrate the high probability that this is the most productive method of teaching logic.
1. The Eleventh Ammendment has been a burr in Constitutional Interpretation for a long time. Many pro-gun propoenents feel that it should be interpreted to state the since the security of the nation is important, the constitution guarantees each individual citizen the right to bear arms (firearms) so as to insure their own security. However, many legal scholars argue that the text needs to be interpreted in the context in which it was created so as to understand its intent. Prior to the Declaration of Independence, the British Government could quarter troops at any private residence (this is also the basis of many of the Constitutional protections against seizures), and the Colonial Governments were generally not allowed to keep local militias armed, having been forced to rely on the British Regulars stationed in the colonies. At the time, there ...