Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society The Boogaloo Bois

That would be pretty funny. AR15s versus one helicopter gunship. It might provide a powerful lesson in the futility of some people's stockpile of weapons "to preserve liberty".

You can argue until you're blue in the face about the 2nd Amendment being essential for freedom, but it's actually the 1st Amendment and the right to file lawsuits against the government that do the heavy lifting. Guns just seem like a more manly option to the permanently juvenile.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment no longer exists. It is moot.

If one uses primacy as an indicator of importance, the first clause (currently, but not historically, ignored) is the operative clause of the amendment. How many people are still alive who voted for the colonel of their county militia?

Yes, exactly that. The Supreme Court has ruled that clause need not be the operative one and that the following portion may be taken as a statement on its own. It's only, like, two lines. It says what it says and it doesn't say what they say it says.

Righwingers:

If you insist.

Here is the second amendment - the whole amendment:
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.

Note the first 4 words; "A well regulated Militia" Its kinda interesting. The Supremes, for instance, rarely rule on any regulations passed by congress to do with guns. I think that they handled it by saying everybody can have one but the regulations are the job of our elected. To get control of them all that needs to happen is for congress, and the presidency, to take a deep breath and pas some serious regulations that make sense.

Unfortunately the Federal government did not nor does it regulate state militias.

Back in 1800 it might have made sense, that the people having equal weaponry with government forces would keep the government in check. (Of course nobody would have made that argument at the time, because insurrections were quickly put down.) But how many individuals owned cannons or other artillery? By the time of WW I, how many owned tanks or large machine guns? By WW II how many owned bombers, or atomic weapons?

Ever since the government has had standing armed forces, this argument has just been silly. When idiots claim it, they should be laughed down.

Hunting, hobby target shooting, or self defense are perfectly legitimate uses for weapons.

Of course hunting, target practice and self-defense are legitimate uses for guns. But those legitimate uses do not preclude their regulation. (Not intending to infer that you believe the opposite.) the idea that the 2nd Amendment was designed to assure individuals could rise up against the state is specious on its face: the militias were not created to destroy the state but to protect it. The people of the 18th century were much more worried about the corrupting and usurping tendencies of a centralized standing army than the government per se, thus citizen militias.

In the United States, as far as I know, there is only a single "state" militia - the National Guard. There are a bunch of independent, mostly White Nationalist groups who call themselves militias but they are certainly not 'STATE' militias!

the National Guard is, as far as I know, really well Regulated!

Reminds me of a story. Apparently there is/was a group called the "Canoneers of America". Their members owned artillery and used to go out, on weekends and blow the crap out of stuff. My understanding was that they REALLY loved to blow up barns. Just a bunch of good old boys having a little fun.

I searched for them but never found anything. This was about 45/50 years ago. Guess they are all gone now.