Gun Control

[BigTex]

Iraq has very relaxed gun law enforcement. I hear it's helped the security situation there a lot...

:)

And banning guns would do what? Somehow magically stop the insurgents from shooting at people? Somehow by banning the ownership of guns would prevent the unrest? Come on.

Guns do not kill people, guns do not injure people, guns don't even scare people. People kill people, people injure people, the gun is just a tool, just look at the UK. After implimenting strict gun legislation there was and is a massive jump in criminals using knifes to kill with.

There is absolutely no reason why you should need to ban guns. It wont prevent crimes it wont prevent deaths. If you wanted to help prevent accidents you'd support gun education.

It's not wether they should ban guns but. Why should they ban guns?

[Kralizec]

Iraq is actually illustrating one of the points cited in favour of gun ownership: it makes it nigh impossible for a foreign power to occupy the country.

[BDC]

And banning guns would do what? Somehow magically stop the insurgents from shooting at people? Somehow by banning the ownership of guns would prevent the unrest? Come on.

Guns do not kill people, guns do not injure people, guns don't even scare people. People kill people, people injure people, the gun is just a tool, just look at the UK. After implimenting strict gun legislation there was and is a massive jump in criminals using knifes to kill with.

There is absolutely no reason why you should need to ban guns. It wont prevent crimes it wont prevent deaths. If you wanted to help prevent accidents you'd support gun education.

It's not wether they should ban guns but. Why should they ban guns?

Well admittedly now, but assuming no one had had guns in the first place, I doubt there'd be any sort of killings on the same level. Be a lot easier to impose some sort of law and order too.

Not sure Iraq really shows any good points. Might be nigh on impossible to occupy the country, but that hasn't really helped the population at large has it?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Doesn't Matter. Imposing a Gun Law/Ban isn't going to Help Crime. When Crime rates shoot up then with knifes, what you going to do, banned steak knives then??

[rory_20_uk]

Iraq is actually illustrating one of the points cited in favour of gun ownership: it makes it nigh impossible for a foreign power to occupy the country.

Relax, the British aren't about to burn Washington down again...

The country was occupied. The ratio of occupiers to locals killed is immense - and the occupiers aren't supposed to be killing any of 'em!

[Mithrandir]

Doesn't Matter. Imposing a Gun Law/Ban isn't going to Help Crime. When Crime rates shoot up then with knifes, what you going to do, banned steak knives then??

Good point.

And why ban heroïn? If alcohol addictions increase, then should alcohol also be banned ?

[Don Corleone]

Okay, Warman, speaking as a hunter, shame on you. My grandfather, who taught me how to hunt, would skin and then cram each and every one of those squirrels and rabbits down your throat. If you were actually farming or something and protecting your crops, that'd be one thing. But killing animals shouldn't be entertainment.

[BigTex]

Good point.

And why ban heroïn? If alcohol addictions increase, then should alcohol also be banned ?

Why ban any drug? If people want to committ suicide let them.

I guess after they ban guns you could go Atl Atl hunting. No, wait the same bleeding heart liberals have banned that already. Hunting is important it keeps the deer and other animal populations in check. Without hunting the deer would overpopulate area's and cause mass famines and kill many other creatures. Inevitably bambi's got to be killed, either by the forest rangers or by the hunter. Wait wait, but without hunting were would all those finances come from for the forest rangers? Hunting is absolutely neccesary it does more envirmental work then PETA and is a wonderful past time.

[Vuk]

Jaysus, young lad, you really do like to let bombs off dontcha...

Everyone knows firearms are completely and utterly unnecessary. If somebody breaks into your house and threatens the lives and/or virtue of your children and wife, simply but politely ask them to stop. If they refuse, offer them a flower. If they still refuse, beg. If they still refuse, call the police, but ask them to come nicely. They'll write you a nice report when they arrive 3 hours henceforth. That should give you enough time to clean up your children and wife to make them presentable for the police when they arrive.

If one inisists on this foolish notion of defending one's family and property, one must be a foul villian that we must shackle immediately.

Translation: even the good Leftys I know think we should ask rapists nicely to stop, but we have no right to defend ourselves from them. Reason #1 why I'll never be a lefty.

Nice one!


In Hawia women were being raped left and right, more so than in anyother state. They legalized firearms and made training programs for women who wanted to take them - in a matter of months, the rapes occuring in Hawaii dropped to half what they had been!
It isn't just women who have to be able to defend themselves though, it's guys to. People have a fundamental right to defend themselves! The founding fathers saw this when they added they bill of rights and the 2nd amendment, but because of the policy of selective incorparation (which is unconstitutional) many states do not let their citizens bear arms. The crime rate in Swisterland which requires all its citizens to own and be able to operate firearms, is the lowest in the world except militant states!!

[AntiochusIII]

In Hawia women were being raped left and right, more so than in anyother state. They legalized firearms and made training programs for women who wanted to take them - in a matter of months, the rapes occuring in Hawaii dropped to half what they had been!

Err, source please.

It isn't just women who have to be able to defend themselves though, it's guys to. People have a fundamental right to defend themselves! The founding fathers saw this when they added they bill of rights and the 2nd amendment, but because of the policy of selective incorparation (which is unconstitutional) many states do not let their citizens bear arms. The crime rate in Swisterland which requires all its citizens to own and be able to operate firearms, is the lowest in the world except militant states!!

I do not believe any of us actually have the superior decisive intelligence to interpret that pathetically vague passage of an Amendment and be sure that we're absolutely correct about it.

So the choice would be: be an arse and a partisan hack to assume you know everything about that particularly controversial Amendment and shout down everyone else, or know nothing and try to find a better ground for our arguments. The Constitution has been beaten enough -- the document wasn't written so that people can bring it up as the ultimate law when it agrees with them and silently avoids mention when it isn't so receptive.

Oh, and the Swiss is an old, old example; one that ought to be dropped already. See, I doubt they were the country with an extremely low crime rate because of the metal pieces called guns -- I think it's the social, cultural, and political aspects of that peculiar country that contribute to a safer environment...or may be it's just the weather.

[Vuk]

Papewaio: No swearing.
Papewaio: No attacks on others.
Papewaio: No attacking other cultures
Papewaio: Please come again.

[Blodrast]

cut down on swearing and personal attacks and insults.
If you can't defend your argument without insulting the other one, shut up.

[Vuk]

Papewaio: No swearing.
Papewaio: No attacks on others.
Papewaio: No attacking other cultures
Papewaio: Please come again.

[AntiochusIII]

If that wasn't the most pathetic, dancing-around-the-bush-lameasshat-nobrain statement I have ever heard!!!!

My pleasure.

The Constitution is the basis and foundation of this land! 'SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND', need I quote it? It is revolutionary to say that it isn't (look up the word revolution on dictionary.com, and you'll see)!!
I have never 'silently avoided' the constitution in any debate (even though there are parts of it I personally disagree with); If you have a problem, amend it!

It does declare itself as the ultimate legal authority of the United States -- I never disputed that. By the way, it isn't "revolutionary" to disagree; even if I don't, in any case.

That is not a vague amendment! It is clearly stated to avoid any confusion or interpretation: , 'The right to keep and bear arms'! Need it be any simpler my little leftist friend?
The right to keep and bear arms is SECURED in the constitution! The only reason people can't in some places is because of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL practice of 'Selective Incorparation'!

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A prime example of terrible sentence construction up there; somehow I suspect it's intentional, though.

Tell me, word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, what do they mean. Don't just summarize the whole, either. This is legalese, not basic "understanding" English.

I'll readily present alternative viewpoints and their justifications of your awaited interpretation of the phrase.

As for Switzerland, no, I think its the colour undies they wear [expletive]! (Of course the countries around them have a similar culture, enviorment, form of government, and, hey! Wear the same UNDIES!!

That makes...no sense.

[Vuk]

Papewaio: No swearing.
Papewaio: No attacks on others.
Papewaio: No attacking other cultures
Papewaio: Please come again.

[drone]

The Backroom is for (somewhat) civil debate, not name-calling. It is against forum rules, and detracts from your arguments.

Forum rules:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/faq.php
Backroom reminder:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=53372

[AntiochusIII]

It is revolutionary to say that we should not use the Constitution as the basis of our laws (read the full clear and present danger clause [expletive]).

I'd assume that this is an indirect accusation of my own dangerously traitorous position (somehow...)

I must disappoint you with knowledge that I am no citizen of the USA...yet. Feel free to deport me, however.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State = a condition

An intention. Note the wording: "well regulated" and "militia." The stated intention being that this is "necessary to the security of a free State." "Necessary;" "security of;" "a free State." Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia; the argument that they contribute to the security of a free state has to be quite stretched.

the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. = an action.

Who are "the People?" Why "keep and bear arms"? What does it mean to be "infringed"?

Moreover, the first phrase does not match the second very well in a modern context. Whereas armies of old often have their own soldiers providing the equipment, especially in a less regularized force as the early American military, such is not the case to the modern military.

Does that nullify the right, or does it not?

Obviously, I am not taking sides -- merely pointing out some the countless questions that can be immediately derived to challenge one certain position of what this particularly Amendment means.

In other words, I'm urging debaters in this thread to acquire support for their positions by other means than the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Pretty simple [expletive]?

Please lay off the insults. I do not believe the moderators will appreciate having to go back to edit your posts to remove the profanity. Moreover, you will get the thread closed. I still see a few debates going (or have potential to go) and do not like them to be interrupted and stopped merely because of such distractions as this.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Okay, Warman, speaking as a hunter, shame on you. My grandfather, who taught me how to hunt, would skin and then cram each and every one of those squirrels and rabbits down your throat. If you were actually farming or something and protecting your crops, that'd be one thing. But killing animals shouldn't be entertainment.

Entertainment? Sarcrasm People, try taking Some Sarcrasm About Entertainment. People Bitch to me About me not taking any, and we got People like Don, who can't, amazing .
Shame on me? What is wrong with protecting my grandfather's garden because he can't see worth a damn due to his Eye Ploblems to shoot them himself? But Then Again, Mabye you don't understand, which it seems you don't.

[AntiochusIII]

Entertainment? Sarcrasm People, try taking Some Sarcrasm About Entertainment. People Bitch to me About me not taking any, and we got People like Don, who can't, amazing .
Shame on me? What is wrong with protecting my grandfather's garden because he can't see worth a damn due to his Eye Ploblems to shoot them himself? But Then Again, Mabye you don't understand, which it seems you don't.

Well, if you explains your situation...

It is very easy to derive from your post that you take pleasure from merely shooting the animals. Obviously, some of us here adores Thumper and don't like the idea of the poor little guy getting shot for fun.

Of course, I'm not making judgement on you at all. Also, everyone misses sarcasm time and again. I don't think it's very nice to say "People like Don...amazing," since Don Corleone has demonstrated his ability to grasp sarcasm on many occasions...

[Don Corleone]

That's not how your post came out Warman. If you're actually varmit hunting to protect a vegetable garden, that's a different matter. But said you sat at the window picking off animals, just for grins and giggles.

You're right that I missed your joke. Sorry, I guess I just missed the funny part.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

An intention. Note the wording: "well regulated" and "militia." The stated intention being that this is "necessary to the security of a free State." "Necessary;" "security of;" "a free State." Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia

In those days militia meant every able bodied man. The point was with every man armed a well regulated militia could be formed very quickly.

Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia; the argument that they contribute to the security of a free state has to be quite stretched.

Hunters are some of the best militia. Their armed and well versed with their weapons. It doesnt say only the militia maybe armed anyway. In fact quite the opposite.

Who are "the People?" Why "keep and bear arms"? What does it mean to be "infringed"?

As I said every able bodied man. And do we really need to explain infringed to you?

the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

This sentence says it all. There are no qualifiers or exceptions here. Nothing about only the militia can be armed but it states plainly that the People all have the right to bear arms and no one shall infringe on that right.

Moreover, the first phrase does not match the second very well in a modern context

As Ive pointed out its not supposed to. Their saying becasue you need a well regulated militia for security it is good to have every able bodied man armed if one need be called up. Thats all it says . Its pretty plain english.

Whereas armies of old often have their own soldiers providing the equipment, especially in a less regularized force as the early American military, such is not the case to the modern military.

The Militia is not the US army. Its a citizen army. In fact it might be callled upon to fight the US Army.

[Strike For The South]

I live in Texas (you may not know it for I am rather humble) Guns are a part of our culture like alchool or fast food. Banning them would kill us a little inside. Oh and and taking away 25 million guns from 10 million pissed off hillbillys that could be a slight logistical problem

[AntiochusIII]

In those days militia meant every able bodied man. The point was with every man armed a well regulated militia could be formed very quickly.

Which I knew. And agreed. The Revolutionary War was fought by militias, obviously.

The Second Amendment had a relatively clear historical use. Modern practical usage, however...

Is in dispute.

Hunters are some of the best militia. Their armed and well versed with their weapons. It doesnt say only the militia maybe armed anyway. In fact quite the opposite.

Were. Unless they are trained in modern military training they will not create an effective fighting force.

Of course, they might contribute to a very hard-to-put-down insurgency.

There are a lot of interpretations, sir. What I subscribe to does not matter -- since my whole point revolves around the issue that there are so many interpretations, many of which equally valid, that just to dismiss them all and cherry-pick the one you happens to agree on is intellectually dishonest.

Just to mention it, I'm not a bleeding heart all-guns-must-be-taken-away kind of person. I just believe regulations are not inherently bad. Else we'll be eating rat meat and human fingers for sausage like we did a century ago.

As I said every able bodied man. And do we really need to explain infringed to you?

So you said.

What does that terribly confusing original text say?

As Ive pointed out its not supposed to. Their saying becasue you need a well regulated militia for security it is good to have every able bodied man armed if one need be called up. Thats all it says . Its pretty plain english.

Not the way the Constitution is often interpreted in this country. Debates often revolves around implications that can be derived from seemingly simple words -- and things had changed from changing interpretations.

The Militia is not the US army. Its a citizen army. In fact it might be callled upon to fight the US Army.

Do hunters stand a chance against Abrams?

Moreover, it's widely accepted that the modern "Militia" is the National Guard, which in all practicality is now used quite frequently by the Federal Government as a reserve force.

[BigTex]

Of course, they might contribute to a very hard-to-put-down insurgency.

That is pretty much the premise of the 2nd ammendment. To make the USA near unconqurable. Also the Revolutionary war was only held together by the militia. The militia like zeal of the regular army is what won it.

Moreover, it's widely accepted that the modern "Militia" is the National Guard, which in all practicality is now used quite frequently by the Federal Government as a reserve force.

The National Guard is indeed a militia. The federal government can only hold a army the state's have a militia. Militia's have always been used to bolster the ranks of an army. The term militia is by no means a word that refers to peasant troops either, even the spartans only had militia's.

Hunters hunting for pleasure purposes obviously are not militia; the argument that they contribute to the security of a free state has to be quite stretched.

Quite wrong there. Hunter's have almost exclusively built the US army's sniper and advanced marksmanship military tradition. The US army has almost always excelled in accuracy with rifles when compared to their enemies. That has alot to do with alot of the populace being familiar and understanding how to fire and aim a weapon. The 2nd ammendment will always be important in any modern perspective.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Is a pretty simple read. Like most of the ammendments in the bill of rights alot of it needs to be seperated by a good o'l ;.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Easier to understand?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

My two favorite amendments in the bill of rights. There's no reason why we need to ban guns. Sure criminals use them but they use any weapon available to them at the time. Again the gun doesnt kill people, the gun is an inanimate object, it has no soul, no conscious, no thought process, it can't even pull its own trigger. People kill People, objects are just used to speed this process.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

That's not how your post came out Warman. If you're actually varmit hunting to protect a vegetable garden, that's a different matter. But said you sat at the window picking off animals, just for grins and giggles.

You're right that I missed your joke. Sorry, I guess I just missed the funny part.

my bad, I should have talked about my Grandfather in that post,but didn't,my fault.


Owning a Gun/Guns isn't Wrong. They are use TO Hunt, Taget Pratice and Sel-Defense. All of them are done each year.

[Redleg]

Which I knew. And agreed. The Revolutionary War was fought by militias, obviously.

The Second Amendment had a relatively clear historical use. Modern practical usage, however...

Is in dispute.

If the 2nd Amendment is in dispute, in order to bring about gun control legislation Congress first must go through the amendment process to the United States Constitution. You can not argue for gun control saying that the United States Constitution is unclear. The second part of the sentence states very clearly what the amendment means. That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Were. Unless they are trained in modern military training they will not create an effective fighting force

Of course, they might contribute to a very hard-to-put-down insurgency.

There are a lot of interpretations, sir. What I subscribe to does not matter -- since my whole point revolves around the issue that there are so many interpretations, many of which equally valid, that just to dismiss them all and cherry-pick the one you happens to agree on is intellectually dishonest.

If the arguement does not call for an amendment to the consitution concerning the current wording of the 2nd amendment then the arguement is intellectually dishonest by itself. One can wish away the 1st or the 2nd half sentence of the 2nd Amendment. One calls for the establishment of a militia, the other states clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Just to mention it, I'm not a bleeding heart all-guns-must-be-taken-away kind of person. I just believe regulations are not inherently bad. Else we'll be eating rat meat and human fingers for sausage like we did a century ago.
So you said.

Gun control regulation does not equate to OSHA and FDA regulations. Regulations that are created by the government for the general welfare of the people is an approiate action by the government. When the constitutional states something - its not a matter of regulation to restrict the wording of the consitution, but an amendment process that must happen. However gun control - the selling of weapons can be regulated to insure the safety of the people. However the state does not have the right to deny ownership of weapons in the United States. (There are a couple of exceptions, the courts through the legal process can restrict one's rights for cause, and the government has successfully argued that certain types of weapons fall outside of the orginial intent of the constitution.) But not one arguement has been successful in arguing against what the 2nd Amendment means - that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What does that terribly confusing original text say?

It states two things - A well regulated militia is important to maintain a free and secure state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The meaning of the words is quite clear - maintain and regulate a militia - and the people shall have the right to arm themselves. What the state has been successfully in arguing is that the orginal intent of the founding fathers was geared toward personal arms - not crew served weapons. Gun control in the form of registration and background checks to determine the legal right to own weapons still exists - fall within the scope of the founding father's orginial intent in my opinion. Attempts to disarm the people does not fall within the scope of the founding father's intent. The desire to disarm the people of arms requires a consitutional amendment, to do otherwise violates the constitution.

Or are you attempting to be intellectually dishonest in this discussion?

Not the way the Constitution is often interpreted in this country. Debates often revolves around implications that can be derived from seemingly simple words -- and things had changed from changing interpretations.

And so far no interpation can get around the second half sentence in the 2nd Amendment.

Do hunters stand a chance against Abrams?

Yes - if they are smart and snipe against the crew of the tank...

Moreover, it's widely accepted that the modern "Militia" is the National Guard, which in all practicality is now used quite frequently by the Federal Government as a reserve force.

Which is one of the missions of the guard. It was also the main intent of the founding fathers since not all believed in the necessity of a standing federal army.

Then you might want to look into the militias that are currently around in the states. There are a several of them. Missouri has a big one that is not the National Guard.

[scooter_the_shooter]

I won't get into this that much because people in general don't have a clue what they are talking about on both sides when it comes to gun control. I haven't even read most of the thread (so this may have been mentioned).


But I figured I'd help my side once. Many anti gunners say that guns can only go to the militia according to the 2nd amendment but what they dont realize is.....they are in the militia.



a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

[Crazed Rabbit]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Confused about the meaning? Consider the Senate Report on the Issue from 1982:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed ... Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

"The advantage of being armed ... the Americans possess over the people of all other nations ... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 26.)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
...
The history of the Second Amendment indicates that its purposes were to secure to each individual the right to keep and bear arms so that he could protect his absolute individual rights as well as carry out his obligation to assist in the common defense. It is evident that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to limit the right to keep and bear arms to a formal military body or organized militia, but intended to provide for an "unorganized" armed citizenry prepared to assist in the common defense against a foreign invader or a domestic tyrant. This concept of an unorganized, armed citizenry clearly recognized the right, and moreover the duty, to keep and bear arms in an individual capacity.

So there you have it.

If the 2nd Amendment is in dispute, in order to bring about gun control legislation Congress first must go through the amendment process to the United States Constitution. You can not argue for gun control saying that the United States Constitution is unclear. The second part of the sentence states very clearly what the amendment means. That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Quoted for truth. You cannot bypass the constituion by claiming a section is in dispute, as though that means you can completely ignore it.

As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.

CR

[Tribesman]

As it happens, there is basically no dispute amoung serious constitutional scholars. It's just the modern nanny-staters don't like it.

Thats strange , since the link Ceasar provides gives this.......

Related FindLaw Resources  
Findlaw Resources 
Visit the Litigation Practice Center 
Sign up for a FindLaw Newsletter 
 
 
 
 

 

Main Index > Cases and Codes > U.S. Constitution > Second Amendment 

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms 


Amendment Text | Annotations 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

 

Annotations
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force. 


In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. 

If there is no definative resolution then it is disputed isn't it , so how the hell can there be no dispute ?

BTW Rabbit , to your earlier "Tribsey" post , you should know by now , read what is written , read exactly what is written

[Crazed Rabbit]

A few things, tribesy:
I said 'basically no dispute'. Of course, we can't rely on you not to make a strawman with every post.

I also said by serious scholars, not long dead supreme court justices who didn't know what they were talking about when they decreed that a 17 1/2 inch shotgun had no use in war, and thus upheld a law as not infringing on militia arms that also, blatantly obvious even to idiots such as themselves, affected weapons of wars, like the BAR machinegun.

Put a little effort into reading my link:

Within our own century, the only occasion upon which the Second Amendment has reached the Supreme Court came in United States v. Miller.[63] There, a prosecution for carrying a sawed off shotgun was dismissed before trial on Second Amendment grounds. In doing so, the court took no evidence as to the nature of the firearm or indeed any other factual matter. The Supreme Court reversed on procedural grounds, holding that the trial court could not take judicial notice of the relationship between a firearm and the Second Amendment, but must receive some manner of evidence. It did not formulate a test nor state precisely what relationship might be required. The court's statement that the amendment was adopted "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces" and "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view", when combined with the court's statement that all constitutional sources "show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.... these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,"[64] suggests that at the very least private ownership by a person capable of self defense and using an ordinary privately owned firearm must be protected by the Second Amendment. What the Court did not do in Miller is even more striking: It did not suggest that the lower court take evidence on whether Miller belonged to the National Guard or a similar group. The hearing was to be on the nature of the (p.11)firearm, not on the nature of its use; nor is there a single suggestion that National Guard status is relevant to the case.

Even what you posted goes against the nanny-stater interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

That is all.

CR