Originally Posted By X-san ***But to restate what I've already said: the notion that since we now have a standing army, that somehow negates the people's need to protect themselves from a government run amok and using its powers against the domestic population is a fallacy. And I don't mean to say that we actually have such a need today - only that just because we have a standing Army isn't what makes it not so.*** I agree. I consider the interpretation to be the right to have weaponry so that we can fight against an army (even our own). However, realistically that wouldn't even be possible today anyway (COULD an armed uprising in America defeat the national guard even? Not likely).
Originally Posted By X-san ***And please note that as a point of order I haven't yet gotten around to stating my opinion on the ruling as it comes to the DC handgun ban.*** I look forward to hearing it.
Originally Posted By hightp Dry, I find your comments very interesting. If you havn't read the ruling, you'll find your reasoning very similar to Justice Scalia's. He found that the 'militia' were the people as a whole as well as that sub-set which included those who were raised in defense of the country. This is, very much, the same definition, today. It would cover those in military service as well as those not in organized militias who may have to defend themselves. You were, also, right on regarding the types of arms that are protected. He stated it would be reasonable to think the arms in regular use at the time are the types the people should have access to. Therefore, modern arms for modern times. Scalia did state that 'reasonable restrictions' could be implemented by the states, but he did not say what the might be. That will, probably, need additional clarification in the future.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Given that, how do you get from: "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." to <<< I agree that the government could have a role to play to define what are appropriate 'arms' for the populace. Is it reasonable to permit a paranoid delusional maniac to bear a gun? The government could have a place to say no. >>> As long as a citizen is left to be armed with something, the government remains in compliance with the Second Amendment. In other words, if a jurisdication selects to ban guns from its citizens, it cannot ban a tazer, or a switch blade, or brass knuckles, or a whip, or a club, or a vicious dog, or etc. A citizens has a right to bear some sort of arm. It's also important to recognize here that 90% of the incidents where guns are used for defense, they are not discharged. Pointing a gun at someone and threatening to shoot them (until they leave the property) is considered gun use - and is and should be legal.
Originally Posted By X-san Post 84 is so ridiculous it is almost beyond comment. BUT, as a gun control advocate, I like it. I say, ban ALL weapons of any kind from the hands of all the citizens of the world, but if you still feel kinda fraidy, you have the right to adopt a Doberman! Amendment covered.
Originally Posted By hightp "As long as a citizen is left to be armed with something, the government remains in compliance with the Second Amendment." That's not quite what the ruling decided. Scalia stated that bans of classes of arms for personal defense were unconstitutional. And the arms in question were to be determined by what was in use at the time. Therefore a government (city, state or otherwise) can't, arbitrarily, ban one and say, 'You still have the other items at you disposal, so it's OK'. That was D.C.'s defense for the case, in the 1st place.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn Just so everyone knows - I support the freedom of citizens to own guns as their selection of armament. Gun ownership is a civil right.
