February 8, 2013, 12:06 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2010
Location: WesTex
Posts: 958
|
Keep in mind that nearly everything the Founders said and wrote suggests (if not explicitly states) that the right to bear arms was a safeguard against tyrannical government. I doubt they wanted the right to bear arms to be subjected to strict regulations from the very entity it was designed to protect us from.
__________________
"And I'm tellin' you son, well it ain't no fun, staring straight down a .44" -Lynyrd Skynyrd |
February 8, 2013, 10:02 AM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
|
|
February 8, 2013, 01:31 PM | #28 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
I had some time to look up the Heller decision.
First, as to the relationship between the militia clause and the main body of the amendment: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 8, 2013, 02:54 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 7, 2008
Posts: 151
|
Samnavy:
Be careful who you use that argument with. There are actually a significant number of folks who would have no problem with your examples and we already have watered down versions of them. Consider the mileage mandates and "smart growth" just as two examples. Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2 |
February 8, 2013, 03:18 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 7, 2008
Posts: 151
|
AB: It sounds like the basic reasoning is that the types of weapons that one would expect the militia to bring with them when called out were roughly the same as what they might already have for hunting, home defense etc and therefore those were the kinds of weapons being protected. What sorts of weapons would the modern militia leaders expect people to show up with if they were needed today? Obviously AR-15 type weapons with normal capacity magazines would be very welcome as would be scoped hunting/sniper rifles. In short, it sounds like Scalia was trying to head off the "so everyone now has the right to a nuclear weapon" argument.
Unlike some, I don't think the question is entirely academic. Anyone who has been paying attention to our budget problems can see that we won't be able to maintain anything like our current military forever. Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2 |
February 8, 2013, 03:19 PM | #31 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
There are very, very few weapons that would not meet the "Common Use" criteria under "Gura's Clause". Certainly all "small arms" of every type would be in common use, were they legal... they were until 1986.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
February 8, 2013, 05:32 PM | #32 |
Member
Join Date: March 8, 2005
Location: ny
Posts: 87
|
Well regulated = well organized/maintained
|
February 8, 2013, 06:55 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
very inderesting write-up on this question, here:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html |
February 8, 2013, 09:35 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 5, 2008
Posts: 182
|
BMTJ, CCWs are just a form of gun registration. In fact, in many states you have to register exactly what guns you own and add them to your right-to-bear-arms license.
Every time the government gives us a token of our rights and we accept it, then we accept and confirm that our rights are gifts from Washington. |
|
|