M14 Shooter

Please state your opinion and lay out your argument for same.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS in effect created a test to see if any given weapon was covered by the protections affordrd to the right of the people to keep and bear arms by linking that weapon to its effectiveness if employed in militia service - that it must have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Thw weapons must be suitable for use in the missions the militia was expected to undertake -- generally. lendint assistance to or creating resistance against the standing army.

So, what weapons are covered today? To determine this, we must look at the militia as seen though history.

The militia, historically, were company-sized units of infantry, raised and employed locally by local leaders, sometimes at the behest of the state government and sometimes not. Today, like then, militia units would be infantry companies, and so, if the militia is to effectively assist or resist the standing army, any weapon (or one similar) commonly found in a typical infantry company would be protected by the 2nd.

This includes, pistols, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, machineguns, light mortars and, possibly, light anti-armor weapons.

So, the 2nd certainly protects my right to own my .45, my M14, my shotgun and my M-60.

__________________
Any time someone says there should be a prior restraint on gun ownership, ask them what they think about a person's right to talk to known al Qaeda operatives without fear of being listened in on.

SKILMATIC

IMO I beleive americans should be able to have everything except a nuke. Reason why is to instill into the gov that it can not be more powerful than the people. Now of course there must be a way of instilling that the weapons that are bought are safely handled and restrained. I would love to be able to buy my own F-14 or a M1 abrahm. Or even just a AT-4.

Conflict

I have several guns but my favorite is by far my AR-10.

TimmyBoy

M-2 ****in' 4, 9 baby. I toted that weapon strapped around my neck like damn John Rambo out of hollywood when I was overseas with rounds all wrapped around me. My Platoon Leader would inspect every morning with a white glove before going on patrol. If any tiny speck of carbon was found, I was low crawling on the ground as punishment. He did it, because he used to be a SAW gunner in Ranger Battalion and he knew how easily it jammed up. The cleaner it was, the less likely it was to jam up and we would be in a world of **** if we needed the SAW and it jammed up because I didn't keep it constantly spotless.

TimmyBoy

You better have alot of cash if you want to own a M1 Abrams. The cost alot of cash to maintain, drive and shoot too. But, hey, if you don't mind busting your ass for a long time, you can have a few short moments of fun shooting a tank table 8 or something. But that would require alot of hard work getting it ready to shoot a tank table 8.

Conflict

I wonder who the heck voted that the 2nd ammendment should constitute the domestic wielding of nuclear munitions? WTF! I believe in the 2nd ammendment whole heartedly... but for pitty sake there were no nukes when the constitution was drafted. Nor were there any Abrams tanks I suppose. Don't get me wrong... if I had the money I would invest in one. I don't know how i'd use it... if nothing else I'd keep it in the garage show it to all my buddies.

M14 Shooter

And I'd like to hear the argument for the 2nd only protecting flintlocks.

GarzaUK

Why would anyone need a automatic rifle in a house? Seriously for what purpose? Pumping 20 rounds a second into a squirrel? It baffles logic. Fair enough a rifle to hunt with, maybe a pistol tops, but a sutomatic weapon?

I don't mean to offend but what sorta guy needs a piece of metal to make himself feel like a man??

Then you Americans have the gall to get all shocked and angry when a pissed off kid gets his hands on a gun with an with a couple of uzis and performs a Matrix style slaying of his school.

In the UK we are allowed a hunting rifle and we have to keep that in a gun club. No pistols, nothing else. The last school shooting was back in 1997, done with a pistol when pistols were legal.
We don't need metal detectors in our schools.
Only 65 gun related deaths last year in a mutli cultured population of 60 million.

__________________
They tried like hell. They called him an élitist, a radical, a socialist, a Marxist, a Muslim, an Arab, an appeaser, a danger to the republic, a threat to small children, a friend of terrorists, an enemy of Israel, a vote thief, a non-citizen, an anti-American, and a celebrity. ~ George Packer

Deegan

I don't like assault rifles, I think they should be banned, but it's a protected right, as it is vauge as to the types, and numbers of weapons. I understand the joy some take in using these weapons, my uncles are big time gun heads, but there is a place for this activity. I would like to see them kept at target ranges, for those who enjoy shooting them, but there is no reason to carry one around. I also don't like hand guns, they are easily hidden, and have killed more folks then any weapon, but again, they are protected.

M14 Shooter

The right to arms is not based on your perception of "need".

The right to arms necessarily protects military weapons because the intent of the 2nd is to see that the people will always have access to weapons suitable for assisting and resisting the standing armny.

Thats a rather childish way of saying you dont really havy anything to say.

I can't recalll that happening here. Perhaps you can refhresh my memory with a news story or somesuch.

The total murder UK murder rate is less than the US non-gun murder rate.
Thus, the "problem" isnt the guns, and the "solution" isnt gun control.