iSm: perhaps we have grown too comfortable in the peace we have maintained for so long. However, if WWII had truly come to our doorstep in the way it came to those in Europe in the 1940's, we wouldn't even be discussing the concept of banning personal firepower, except to say how ridiculous a concept banning it would be.

Do we have "everyman" militias today? Not so much. Should we have the capability of forming them to protect true freedom from corrupt governments of our future? Abso-fvcking-lutely. Unless you like life under Dick Cheney.

Oh, I'm not saying you can't kill them, I just don't think that this extends to be granted every possible means of doing so. And if it were possible to somehow restrict non-hunting gun use to just that instance than I'd be willing to consider carving out an exception.

Yes, that was very helpful....thankyou:)

To say that it was originally intended to be in article I, section 9 does not say much. That section is not about individual rights. It's about preventing Congress from engaging in the types of overbearing abuses of power vis a vis the states that are catalogued in the dull part of the Declaration of Independence. This arguably suggests that part of the concern of the Second Amendment was ensuring that states could protect themselves against a tyrannous federal government.

However, unless you want to say that, as with most but not all of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment (which limits state action) to apply to the states, then states would still have the right to regulate gun ownership. Since the District of Columbia is now self-governing, it should as well. Thus, while the federal police cannot break down our doors to confiscate our nuclear weapons, the state police can.

It would be a little ironic if the Court held that the Second Amendment applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment since that amendment was enacted in the aftermath of an armed secession.

Morrigoon, I don't know what you're on about. Street Gangs know all about firearms, but they are not ready to fight off an invading army. Oh, perhaps they'd be better at it than I would, but that doesn't make them battle-ready.

We have a volunteer army that leeches from the bottom rungs of society, where we keep the disposable humans.

Training is needed to fight a war, whether an invasion of our shores or, of course, if we don't want to go back more than a hundred and fifty years, our invasion of other shores.

It's ludicrous to pretend that anyone who can shoot a gun is ready to engage in battle.



In any case, since there are no militia and there's near zero chance of the citizenry keeping weapons capable of fighting off modern armies, especially that of the United States, the rationale for the right to bear arms which you are supporting, and which is the ONLY rationale in the 2nd amendment, is patently absurd.

At the time of the original writings, the weapon of choice was a single-fire musket.

I think that mmeans that everyone is constitutionally entitled to own a single-fire musket.

Or whatever grade of weaponry our military is currently using. Depending on how you wanna read that ;)

So if the choice is thus between nuclear weapons and the single-fire musket, which would you, Morrigoon, sitting on the Supreme Court, grant to all Americans?

Hahah... touche.

But I don't expect the American government to use nukes on its own people in an oppression situation. Not that I expect our government to suddenly turn around and oppress us, but I have a strong feeling that the intent behind the amendment had to do with the people's power to maintain their hard-won freedom, even if from their own government. So perhaps what should be considered is what level of weapon would be likely to be used by a government on its own people?

Understand that I discuss this academically. Myself, I choose not to own a firearm. But I feel that by maintaining my right to do so, I help guarantee that I'll never wish I did.

Secrecy and misinformation?