The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

the Spanish-American War,

I don't see how the Dick Act of 1903 violates anything. It simply mandates that the "militias" (now renamed as the National Guard) be better trained, better equipped and come under at least partial Federal control. A very poor showing of their abilities to do the job was amply demonstrated during the Spanish-American War, leading to the reform of the entire military establishment, including the state militias.

Can you, Andrei, point out to me even one instance where the US has lived up to the hype/bullshit about it being the savior of the oppressed?

I don't see how the Dick Act of 1903 violates anything.

It simply mandates that the "militias" (now renamed as the National Guard) be better trained, better equipped and come under at least partial Federal control.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

It simply mandates that the "militias" (now renamed as the National Guard) be better trained, better equipped and come under at least partial Federal control.

If they were the militia, guardsmen would not be sworn into the US Army when they join the Guard
(the militia and a standing army being two VERY different things).

What I am interested in is your honest opinion on what the chances are that the current hysteria (and that's all it is) will actually lead to some significant legislation at the national level regarding weapons control. Regardless of what you think should happen, what do you think, realistically, is going to happen? Please try and back it up with some reasons of why you think this.

What I am interested in is your honest opinion on what the chances are that the current hysteria (and that's all it is) will actually lead to some significant legislation at the national level regarding weapons control.

No, the 2nd Amendment Uber alles crowd wants to thin the population of innocent children.

They see it as their duty

The willingness of some to argue that the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to carry any weapon at any time will ultimately defeat itself.

If the courts actually rule that the people have a very clear way to overturn it, amend the Constitution to eliminate the 2nd amendment.

It may well be a Pyrrhic victory to get carry anywhere any time as some seem to want.

The willingness of some to argue that the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to carry any weapon at any time will ultimately defeat itself.

parados wrote:

The willingness of some to argue that the 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to carry any weapon at any time will ultimately defeat itself.

I don't know whom you have in mind when you say "some", but even justice Scalia doesn't argue that in his Heller decision. The right to hold and bear arms is a Constitutional right of the individual, just like free speech, free assembly, due process, and whatnot. And just as with these other rights, the government can constrain this one, if the constraints are narrowly tailored to achieve compelling public interests.

Hence, in the next 20 years, I expect lots of Second-Amendment cases in which the Supreme Court will balance the individual right to hold and bear arms against the compelling interest of cities and states to maintain public safety.

I also expect that all of the measures currently discussed will pass the Supreme Court's yet-to-be-developed balancing tests --- even if Scalia turns out to become their architect.

What would be the public's compelling interest in preventing a rifle from having a pistol grip?

If they were the militia, their role would be limited to repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and enforcing the law. They would not be serving in overseas wars.

footnote that was the problem the government ran into during the War of 1812 as the states militias would not take part in the invasion of Canada so all you Canadians on this system one of the main reasons you are still an independent country is our constitution and the fact that a state militia is not the same as the modern National guard.

Maybe. It is impossible to rerun history to see how things would turn out if things were done differently, but Canada was not exactly defenseless, and might have still repelled our invasion even if all our militia had responded when summoned.