View Single Post
Old January 22, 2013, 07:53 PM   #6
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,153
The original use of the militia was to fight against foreign enemies (which would include the Indian tribes on the frontier) and domestic tyranny (just as the British subjects in America were subjected to prior to the War).

With that in mind I believe we would have to say the 2A confirms the right of citizens to use at least what would used by militia in fighting battles to defend their country, communities or homes. At a bare minimum this should be the standard issue arms of the infantry soldier: M16/M4 class rifle, sniper rifle up to .50BMG, shotguns, pistols, MP5 submachinegun, etc. These should be 100% allowed without question.,

A good case could be made for other arms commonly issued to individual infantry such as light and medium machine guns suchas M240 and M249, grenades, claymores, grenade launchers, LAWs, etc. If you were fighting an all out battle on the frontier, or an invading or tyrant army and could not wait to be supplied by the national standing army you would want all of those arms at a minimum.

Reality is that we have fallen far from our "inalienable right." From what I understand the Court has ruled that the 2A covers "the" standard infantry arm (rifle) and that "reasonable" restrictions are allowed on this right. Presumably semi-auto only action is one of these reasonable restrictions. We have yet to find out what other restrictions the Court will find reasonable, but I presume they will have difficulty allowing standard infantry arms such as SAW, grenade launcher, LAWs rocket.
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04317 seconds with 7 queries