Discussion pertaining to the militia act of 1792

There's nothing in the Second that gives the government the power to keep one type of firearm from the people, and if the right is collective as so many people seem to think, "military-grade" firearms would be the first weapons protected from the government.

What does "military-grade" mean to you, anyway?

 

No limit other than ‘not less than twenty four’.

 

A musket was a military grade firearm.

 

Amendments do not grant or otherwise create rights, they merely recognize and protect them against infringement.

 

So We the People have the right to own nuclear ballistic missiles according to you?

 

There is no right to own military grade weapons!

 

A firearm, regardless of type, is not a so-called "military grade weapon" nor is such a designation actually relevant to the discussion. "Military grade" means produced by the lowest bidder.

 

Scary looking.

 

So you believe that you should be allowed to have a 120 mm cannon fitted to your pickup?

 

This is what happens when you argue with the willfully ignorant.

 

If an individual can legally acquire and possess not only such a cannon, but also the ammunition designed for its use, what exactly is the problem with such? Federal law presently allows for the legal acquisition of such implements. Why should such not become more widespread if it is indeed legal?

 

You can. Easy to do and perfectly legal.
http://steencannons.com/cannons/u-s-model-1857-12-pounder-napoleon/
This is only 117.3mm, however.

 

Well that is what the second amendment says

 

So instead of the NRA just enabling the mentally unbalanced to run amok in a school with firearms they should be allowed to rain down high explosive shells capable of killing hundreds of innocent children with each pull of the trigger?

That NRA supporters see nothing at all wrong with this says volumes!

 

What's a military grade weapon?

 

delete

 

A lot of people are already in the militia and don't know it. According to 10 USC 246, all males 18-45 are in the unorganized militia. That' s about 61 million men. I'd love to see the unorganized militia mustered. I'd even volunteer as cadre.

 

Until NFA 1934, there was no government authority to restrict them. Given that ICBMs are neither "in common use for lawful purposes" or "have a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia", the right to own them doesn't exist.

But you knew this. You can only dive deep into the ridiculous to support your arguments.

 

18 USC 922g already prohibits those who have been adjudicated mentally defective or have been institutionalized, and explosives are regulated under NFA 1934.

 

Why don't you talk specifically about what weapons we currently have that you don't want us to have, and support that ban with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and SCOTUS decisions.

 

Ironic projection duly noted for the record!

 

It doesn't work that way in REALITY!

No, you do NOT have an UNLIMITED RIGHT to whatever weapons you want to play with!

ALL rights can be REGULATED!

As long as a regulation does not materially infringe upon the right the regulation is CONSTITUTIONAL!

The government could pass a regulation limiting the caliber and muzzle velocities of all firearms to something incapable of penetrating a plastic bag. That would NOT infringe on your right to bear arms since you could have as many of those types of guns as you liked.

That you fallaciously believe that your right to bear arms is unlimited is not my problem.

 

Yes, those quotes of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, SCOTUS, FBI, DOJ, CDC are just so ridiculous

You really aren't here to debate, are you?

 

Oh, the IRONY!

You are just here to gainsay factual reality as it pertains to firearms.

 

Given that Heller affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, it would seem that being limited to firearms that cannot penetrate a plastic bag would violate that right.

Given that you believe such a restriction would be Constitutional, we don't have enough understanding of the Constitution in common to even allow for reasoned debate.