Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

And if they did allow it, those individual citizens would have been allowed muskets, muzzle-loaded long guns -- as should be the case now.

---

I would even go so far as to supply them with tomahawks.

Quote:

---

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, it's pretty clear to me that it's referring to state militias, but I know that's been litigated so I'm a minority. I can't imagine the writers intended it for individual citizens.

---

You can't have a militia without individual citizens having guns. A militia is not like a national guard unit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You can't have a militia without individual citizens having guns. A militia is not like a national guard unit.

---

But only certain citizens -- not ALL of them. The rest get tomahawks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You can't have a militia without individual citizens having guns. A militia is not like a national guard unit.

---

Why do you need a militia, you have a standing army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, space force

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Why do you need a militia, you have a standing army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, space force

---

Good point, 'clete!

We had a standing marines, army and navy in the 18th century, so not a good point. At any rate, the point is that you cannot have a militia without individual gun rights, so yes, that is the point of the amendment.

Quote:

---

But only certain citizens -- not ALL of them.

---

Where does it say that?

so you are in favour of children, criminals and the insane having guns

Quote:

---

so you are in favour of children, criminals and the insane having guns

---

I am?

That's insane

I would agree, just like it was insane for you to suggest I have said that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

We had a standing marines, army and navy in the 18th century, so not a good point. At any rate, the point is that you cannot have a militia without individual gun rights, so yes, that is the point of the amendment.

---

Yes, you can. The U.S. Supreme Court adopted the following definition for "active militia" from an Illinois Supreme Court case of 1879: " 'a body of citizens trained to military duty, who may be called out in certain cases, but may not be kept on service like standing armies, in times of peace'. . . when not engaged at stated periods . . . they return to their usual avocations . . . and are subject to call when public exigencies demand it."

Thus, guns and ammunition would be kept safely out of sight and handed out when needed.

Quote:

---

Thus, guns and ammunition would be kept safely out of sight and handed out when needed.

---

Except it never says that.

"Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:^[8]

• Organized militia – consisting of State Defense Forces, the National Guard and Naval Militia.^[9][10]
• Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the State Defense Forces, National Guard, or Naval Militia.^[11]"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Except it never says that.

---

And it doesn't say what you want it to.

I'll settle for this. "Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the State Defense Forces, National Guard, or Naval Militia."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'll settle for this. "Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the State Defense Forces, National Guard, or Naval Militia."

---

Doesn't say anything about guns and ammunition.

I'm not sure what your point is. Militias in early American history depended on individual gun owners who could assemble rapidly and be ready. We don't have those now, but individual gun rights are well established in law, so I just don't know where you're trying to go with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Doesn't say anything about guns and ammunition.

---

the only requirement is arms and each has two

Quote:

---

individual gun rights are well established in law,

---

District of Columbia v. Heller 2008
McDonald v. Chicago 2010
Caetano v. Massachusetts 2016

all recent cases decided by SCOTUS that reaffirms 2nd amendment individual rights to own guns . The argument about militia is a nonstarter according to the Heller decision and McDonald decision. It does not prevent the regulation of firearms . But the assumption is that Americans have the fundamental right to own them.

And the assault weapons argument is just a distraction. Most liberal dems don't even know what the term refers to. It's like someone saying we could use a 22 or a Mauser, which is along the lines of saying we could use a weiner dog or a german shepherd. The "assault weapons" are used in only 3% or 4% of gun murders. Handguns are far and away the chief culprit. The "ban the assault weapons" movement is just a feel good moment, but is likely meant to be the first step in many intended to suppress gun ownership.

Perhaps we could start moving all gun murderers to the front to every judicial line. We will try your case relatively quickly, give the case one or two automatic, very thorough appeals, and if you are plainly guilty, then you will be executed. If all of this happened in a year or two rather than the usual ten or twenty years, then I think you would see gun murders begin to drop even further than they already have. That's what we could consider if we were really serious about saving lives rather than simply scoring political points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

District of Columbia v. Heller 2008
McDonald v. Chicago 2010
Caetano v. Massachusetts 2016

all recent cases decided by SCOTUS that reaffirms 2nd amendment individual rights to own guns . The argument about militia is a nonstarter according to the Heller decision and McDonald decision. It does not prevent the regulation of firearms . But the assumption is that Americans have the fundamental right to own them.

---

So where is the regulation? The right wants NONE, and prayers and condolences fall far short.

Quote:

---

The "ban the assault weapons" movement is just a feel good moment, but is likely meant to be the first step in many intended to suppress gun ownership.

---

A long held assumption based in FEAR and no excuse for the popular support of reasonable common sense gun control continually opposed by the gun lobby that so far has aided and abetted criminals and homicidal loonies.