The need for a civilian militia....

Machine guns and silencers are banned? Do I need to turn in my Thompson (with silencer)? When did this happen?

 

They way I read it, the words "the government can ban..." means that the Govt has the capability to do it, not that it has done it.

How did you read "the government can ban..." as meaning the government has banned ...?

 

No it most certainly does not. "security of a free state" does not equate to "defense of the nation." If it did, then the word "free" would be removed from the text. The framers were at least as concerned about rights infringement by the government they were about to set up as they were with foreign attack, likely much moreso as the govt they were establishing had never been tried.

A "militia" is not a formal group of any kind, but the able-bodied populace who may be rallied to defense, local or otherwise, from -any- interlopers including the central government itself and the skinhead group down by the river. The militia historically included all able bodied men above a certain age, and in many instances women as well. The constant mistake of anti gun folks is in equating "militia" to "military" or particularly "standing army." Militia is merely the able bodied number of a population who might be called to defend the locality in a time of emergency.

"Regulated" means "equipped." The Second Amendment is crystal clear and the Supreme Court has interpreted it correctly as vesting rights in individuals, not in some organized paramilitary. The words are VERY plain and easy to understand. Good.

Keep grasping at straws though, anti gun folks. Any rational central anti gun argument must be founded on seeking a Constitutional Amendment, but the left long ago learned to slime its way past that unfortunate necessity with all its "critical theory" claptrap and misanalysis such as found in the OP.

 

So by claiming the first part of the amendment is no longer relevant, that some how makes the second part of the relevant? Is that what you're going for?

So some how speculating what men who wrote the 2nd amendment would think about weapons that didn't exist in their time is a valid point. No, not really.

 

No, I just pointed out that you did not state the entire part of the 2A, which states

"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."

Exactly my point.

 

more willful ignorance, how mature

your insinuation is that 'well regulated' militia extends no further than - - the professional national guard.

 

More willing dodging by you. How mature.

I made no such insinuation. - -

I'm not the one who said they were the militia. See my prior post, you dodged.

 

I can see you're in a sour mood. I guess we're done for now.

 

That is incorrect. According to Federal Law, the militia is composed of every able bodied male between 18 and 45, as well as female members of the National Guard.

 

I would. Freedom of Speech. Of the Press. It's only a technicality based upon a legal fiction that the airwaves are "owned by the public" that government is allowed to regulate TV at all. This is why the FCC is powerless over cable or satellite TV, or the Internet.

But "the masses" DO have easy access to machine guns. I'm not going to guess at a number, but MOST people would pass the background checks required. They simply have no interest, or don't feel like making the investment required. I could easily get a Class-III license. But I'm not going to spend $20k on a weapon, so there is no reason for me to. (Though I eventually might to get a silencer for my AR.)

 

Machine guns have been banned for civilian ownership, unless you have a special permit, for several years now. And most states have bans on sliencers and other attachments which have no use outside of offensive combat.

 

You are wrong. A Class-III permit allows a person to own a machine gun and/or a silencer. Assuming you have a clean background (which most people do), they will qualify. And while a few States ban "Class-III' permits, for the most part most do not. Which means anyone who qualifies (which is most people), who want's a Class-III permit, qualifies, and will get one.

 

So what did the founders say about the TV?

Irrespective of your opinions of whether the masses have easy access to machine guns, let's not t kid ourselves into thinking we can reasonably speculate on what the founders would have thought about the masses having easy access to machine guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you need a Class-III permit to buy a shotgun or hand gun? If not, they how does it not qualify as a "special permit"?

 

That we have freedom of speech, and of the press. Medium is irrelevant.

Considering it was common (and legal) in those days for members of the general public to own literal cannons, I think it's safe to assume it wouldn't concern them.

 

It happens all the time.

- - - Updated - - -

Technically, machine guns, silencers and such aren't banned. They are just heavily regulated, and they are infrequently used by criminals as a result.

 

The second amendment is totally outdated. It was good, when the nation was threatened by the British and disturbed by Indians and when professional army was still weak and hardly sufficient. Now, the Second Amendment is a holy part of Constitution to naïve believers who think they can defend their freedoms by keeping a bunch of guns in homes. In fact, firearms are used with devastating effects by gangs, bank robbers and deranged individuals for shooting kids, preferably in schools.

 

...that's being naive and assuming that, maybe in the distant future, there will never be another large-scale war on US soil - but that possiblity's always there. Just like Hitler's rise to power was totally unexpected - anything could happen in theory

Which you can.

Yeah but they always were Do you have any idea how many guns killed those native Americans. Not to mention alcohol and cars kill more per year than all mass shootings have in US history combined

 

A $200 tax stamp is pretty much all it takes for either.

 

Those who have read the debates of the founding fathers, and realize the argument of the time was about power, and how to prevent it from accumulating in one person or group, take it to mean that ordinary citizens can own guns.

 

It has been argued already in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago. A well regulated militia providing security for a free state is but one reason provided for not infringing the people's right to bear arms. Even if that reason is no longer needed, it doesn't restrict the operative clause of not infringing the right to bear arms. It is inconceivable that the founders would have listed every single reason to own a firearm in the 2nd A.

 

And the Army wouldn't? The idea we need weapons to protect ourselves from a non-existent threat is silly especially since lately, no one feels the need for an uprising against money in politics, which is the root cause of such dissent in this country right now.

Where's the militias taking on the corporations imposing tyranny of the worker?

No where to be found.

2nd Amendment is garbage and people in support of guns for everyone without any limitations are full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

for people who love talking about minorities. Progressive-Leftist sewer dwellers certainly possess a passionate hatred for the actual voting minority.

 

Hey, I'm not saying to grab all guns, but the actual statistics point to guns being the cause of high gun violence in this country. If you're responsible, have one. If you show hard evidence of not being able to have responsible gun ownership as part of your existence, you shouldn't have one.

Simple, no?

 

Regulated meaning well operated, efficient...not controlled by the state so as to eliminate the right.

 

Why are those so hot to regulate the right out of existence in any way authorities on the meaning of that right?