George Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to win the war with Britain... He shot them.
This is especially the case in that most guns used in crime are stolen, and that criminals will not register the guns they illegally own - indeed, they cannot be legally required to do so.
That said, I do believe that some people have taken the 2nd Amendment to the extreme in using it as a permission slip to buy whatever weapons/arms they wish to define as a "personal defensive weapons". And while neither the NFA nor the GCA prohibit anyone from purchasing certain types of weapons as long as they are of legal age, U.S. citizens, pay the appropriate tax and properly register same, I do think that crack in Pandora's Box where "personal protection" is concerned remains too wide open.
The problem with the 2nd Amendment as I see it is that it uses the words "well regulated militia", "security of a free state" and "right of the people" all in the same sentence. However, I don't believe the context matches the content as the situation applies today. Nonetheless, the SCOTUS upheld the state's right to form citizen militias and as such protected the individuals right to keep and bear arms. The question, rightly enough, now becomes what weaponry can a person rightfully possess as weapons that would normally be required of a militia? And since the SCOTUS upheld the state's right to form militias, you rightully have to answer this question in that context. I think it's the wrong way to go, but it is within this framework bywhich the states must address their laws on gun control.
Again, as I've stated in my last post, I believe the intent behind the 2nd Amendment was so that the states could call upon it's residents to take up arms in defense of said state. But we now have other entities to defend the state against a hostile takeover from within (domestic) and without (foreign). Yet, the later part of the 2nd Amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the part that WE, the people continue to fight tooth and nail to preserve. Well, if you take the 2nd Amendment in its entirety and apply it in the content for which it was truly entended, I think most people would agree there's no need for a citizen militia in any state anymore...at least not in the way such was formed two centuries ago. And if there's no need for a militia, then WE, the people no longer need to take up arms in defense of the state inwhich we reside. Again, we have the National Gurd for that (which, of course, is an all-volunteer force). But WE will fight to preserve this right for the sake of "self-protection" which I also agree with.
I think the best thing the SCOTUS can do is to take up U.S. -v- Miller again and define what [fire]arms are for personal protection. It's the only way to keep certain types of firearms as identified under the NFA out of the hands of this nation's citizens where they can potentially be used irresponsibly.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 10-01-09 at 04:25 PM.
In any case, it's not a militia. In fact, in several significant ways, it works against the idea of a militia.
And besides, the right to keep and bear arms is independent of the existence of a militia . . . otherwise, it would have been the "right to form a militia" which was protected.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
How could the common citizen vote out a government that decided they were going to denie all rights from the constitution and become a dictatorship and have a president and congress for life?
Of course that could never happen, could it.