Who Would Vote For bush Again?

Lightwizard wrote:

Keep and bear Arms (not guns, Arms). Arms like a nuclear weapon?

No. Arms like a full-auto M16 with armor-piercing ammo.

I like that quote. However, sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from the US government definitely includes tanks, nukes, etc. Wouldn't work, otherwise. Just have a look at Iraq.

oralloy wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

Keep and bear Arms (not guns, Arms). Arms like a nuclear weapon?

No. Arms like a full-auto M16 with armor-piercing ammo.

How do you know?

Automatic rifles are the basic weapons of all militias found throughout the world. A few militias have heavier weapons, but they all have automatic rifles.

Plus, the one modern example that closely fits what the Framers wanted our militia to be like (the Swiss Militia), arms their militiamen with automatic rifles.

I agree with the intention they had in mind.

However, that sounds as if you would read the Second Amendment as an Amendment establishing a militia rather than and Amendment granting the right to bear arms...

The militia was already established in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

What the Second Amendment does is require that the government have a militia on hand to defend the country, and require that people in the militia be adequately armed (meaning arms comparable with what a militia of the day would be expected to be armed with).

oralloy wrote:

Automatic rifles are the basic weapons of all militias found throughout the world. A few militias have heavier weapons, but they all have automatic rifles.

So why shouldn't the populace be allowed to own heavier weapons, too?

How do you know that that is the one modern example that closely fits what the Framers wanted our militia to be like?

And, if the Swiss milita would be such an example, then US citizens should probably be armed with armored vehicles and fighter aircrafts, too.

huh... doesn't the national guard meet that need ?

oralloy wrote:

The militia was already established in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Article I Section 8 establishes the right of Congress to call forth a militia, right? It doesn't really establish a militia.

oralloy wrote:

What the Second Amendment does is require that the government have a militia on hand to defend the country, and require that people in the militia be adequately armed (meaning arms comparable with what a militia of the day would be expected to be armed with).

So the federal government is actually not complying with the Constitution?

Furthermore, you're saying that the right to bear arms is connected to being organized in a well regulated militia. So how would I have the right to own and bear arms outside such a militia?

I've nothing against it, but since there are plenty of militias that get by with just automatic rifles, I don't think militiamen would have a specific right to such weapons. It would be up to the discretion of the legislature.

Well, they keep their arms at home (consistent with "keep" in the Second Amendment), and they are a defensive force that doesn't go fight in other countries (consistent with the Constitution limiting the role of our militia to suppressing insurrection, repelling invasion, and enforcing the law.

My understanding is that the Swiss Militia is primarily armed with automatic rifles, except for officers who carry pistols.

Aren't the heavier weapons part of the Swiss Army instead of their militia?

old europe wrote:

So the federal government is actually not complying with the Constitution?

Correct, much to my consternation.

That is heading into a bit of a gray area. The core part of the Second Amendment would only apply to people who join a militia.

The self-defense right would not apply to automatic rifles, but it would cover things like armor-piercing ammo to defend against criminals wearing body armor.

Of course that would definitely link the right to bear arms to the condition of being organized/part of a militia.

So, if you'd say that the Swiss militia is the best example of what the Founding Fathers had in mind, are you then arguing that the possesion of arms should be linked to the membership in a well-organized militia?