So back to my original question.Degenerate your opinion?That's nice. It is also irrelevant to the application of the second which was what we were talking about. IF the second is no longer relevant it would not change the reality of its protection against governmental interference. You would have to change it first.They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller."... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.
And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!
The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.
"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.
A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?
That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative
, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution
SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.constitutioncenter.org
What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.
It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.
The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.
Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.
I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.
That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.
Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.
Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.
No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
You asked, then you denigrate my opinion? We don't need to modify the Constitution to ban Automatic Assault Weapon, as you say they're already banned. Banning semi automatic weapon because they look like military style weapons is ridiculous.
Whatever, you responded to my post with 'Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with' as though it was supposed to mean something. Now your complaining because I pressed against it?
What you posted has nothing to do with anything I have been saying. That is not degenerating anything.
That's because I was discussing the role of the militia, not the 2nd.
Degenerate? No.
Definition of DENIGRATE
to attack the reputation of : defame; to deny the importance or validity of : belittle… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
And how does that makes sense in response to my comment?