Gun Control

[Redleg]

How can you know that? What if you are wrong - should we limit our rights because we don't think we'll need to use them in full?

Without the proper training most military weapons are more dangerous to the user versus the intended target. The militia clause in the 2nd Amendment address this issue.

How can one read the second and surmise that military arms can be banned? Military arms are still arms - "the birthright of every American". They are the only arms that matter.

There is no birth right to ordance in the constitution only arms. I am addressing what I believe to be the orginal intent of the drafters. Arms primarily dealt with the weapons that were available for individual use. Cannons were often refered to as ordance in the time period that the constitution was drafted. If one takes a good look at the constitution and the case law that has followed the government has routinely banned military weapons for private use. For instance while you can buy a tank or a cannon - it has been de-militarized. In otherwords it can not be used as it was orginally designed to fire munitions.

You make much of the military being one percent of the population. Iraq has about 26 million people, and we have about 141k soldiers in Iraq. While not a model for complete control, we are maintaining some sembalence of control with less than 1%, in a control where the insurgents have RPGs and other military weapons.

Your discounting the Iraqi forces in country and the other nations forces. The insurgents are primarily armed with personal weapons, and Improved Explosive devices. The RPG's yes they have, but notice the pure havoc they are creating with the standard equipement of the militia, a shoulder fired rifle. Then your forgeting the mortars that came available from the military that just faded away versus fighting. Which goes to my point.

The second was never about self defense. That was a side benefit. The Founders valued freedom - why in hell would they want the right of the people to be limited by the state? The purpose was to overthrow tyranny - and this purpose and right is infringed upon when any arms are banned.

You might want to read into the wording and the reasons of the 2nd Amendment a little more clearly. I linked an article already that states otherwise, you also have posted a link that states otherwise also. Defense of nation was the primary purpose of the clause - which is what I believed what I stated first. The purpose to overthrow tyranny is a side-benefit to the clause. I might of misspoke and stated self-defense was a primariy cause - and if I did, it was incorrect.

Rights are never about, and have never been about 'need'. But considering the increasing militarization of large police forces - SWAT teams, M4s in squad cars, body armor, your question might not have the answer you intended.

Actually it does have the intended answer. Well placed rifle fire defeats many modern things - does that equipment make it difficult - you betcha, but if the government has become a tryanny that your imaging - law and order has alreadly broken down if the people are revolting.

Perhaps because they didn't have the votes for a permanent ban - democrats tried recently to make the ban permanent, you know.
The miller case allowed restrictions on the sawed off shotgun only because they didn't view it as a military weapon.

Miller is cited as showing that the 2nd Amendment allows for restrictions. The Machine Gun law of 1934 or is it 1938, is cited as it gives a prime examble of a law that has stood up to challenges concerning restriction of ownership of weapons.

The automatic expiration date was there to prevent a constitutional challenge in my opinion.

I would not place my freedom entirely in the trust of other men, beacuse then I do not have it.

I place my freedom in my own hands and the country's freedom in the hands of all citizens.

You mean this?

yep

You could argue government can control the arms it gives the militia, not what arms people can purchase.

The point is it can be interpated either way. The 2nd Amendment does not over-ride that clause. With the wording of the constitution, the amendment, and what arms was normally meant at the time of drafting, one can logically argue that military weapons are not meant for the people. Which is indeed what is the norm in the United States. You can not purchase many of the pieces of equipment that the military uses.

I respect you Redleg, but I must strongly disagree.

Crazed Rabbit

Disagreement is fine, civil discourse to discuss that disagreement is what democracy is all about.