Actually Kennesaw also made it possible for someone of conscience to abstain from that law. That is a hell of a lot better than the case in NY or IL that prompted Kennesaw to pass the law to begin with. But again, that part is conveniently forgotten by the "freedom for me but not for thee" crowd. And the militia is defined in the US code as being any able bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45.
Ah, there's the rub. Carrying a firearm is not immediate harm until they pull it out and brandish it with out just cause. So lets not even have them in the area. (ie: crowded city streets, public transportation)
But a single bullet will cost 5 thousand dollars. If bullets suddenly cost 5 thousand dollars, you'd never again hear of an innocent bystander.
Let's start with people who wear their pants/shorts below their asses. Statistically such a person is likely to be an idiot and/or a criminal. Both are dangerous. Also anyone with tattoos on their face or neck? Automatic ban from everywhere.
Interesting point. Second Amendment doesn't say anything about ammo. If SCOTUS managed to find where in the invisible ink it says "militia doesn't really mean militia," I'm sure it can find another clause that says "oh, and all the ammo your little heart desires, too."
This has to be the biggest argument for this that there is. This is especially the case for a writer, who theoretically would understand the importance of, you know, words. Because the thing you and everyone else who has attempted to use this argument seems to have forgotten is that part where it says, "the right of the people," not, "the right of the militia." If the intent there was not to guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms, why then was "the people" used and not "the militia?" I also find this line of argument amusing, because the people who try to use it apparently don't think that the founding fathers messed up on the language of any of the other amendments - just the one they don't like. That's like the ACLU claiming to be all about protecting civil liberties, and yet when it comes to the second they're against it. Bunch of hypocrites.
I don't think even the militias of the time the 2nd Amendment was written were "required to wear a uniform, undergo regular training, and report for some sort of National Guard duty at least once a year."
Neither ink nor paper were used in the composition of this post. Fine. You don't have to abide by any of the above if you're only in possession of 18th-century weapons.
Of course not. But I'm interested in seeing just how many of the rationales only go in one direction.
Okay, I don't think modern militias are "required to wear a univorm, undergo regular training, and report for some sort of National Guard duty at least once a year" either.
Since like guns they are inanimate objects making them incapable of hurting anyone on their own: Zero.
If there is ever another need for militias in the U.S., I reckon they would be the last of your worries.
So since the U.S. has the highest rate of gun-related deaths in the industrialized world, you figure it must be because Americans are innately violent? So how many times have you seen Mad Max? Or are you more of a Terminator type? Escape from NY? Or just some zombie thing? Help me out here.
If you can only see militias within a pop-cultural context, then I don't think I can. Probably explains why you seem to think that guns commit murder.
Definitions #3 and #4 cover my definition. To be in proper order. For a militia, that is: to function properly. The implication is: to be effective. But one could substitute a number of adjectives there: "skilled," "well-trained," "ordered," "disciplined," "prepared," etc. To be well-regulated is all these things because it means to be capable of performing militia tasks effectively. Definitions #2 and #3 (minus the males-only bit, of course) essentially form the definition I gave. So, I didn't twist any words. You looked up the relevent definitions that I gave. And, besides, the Supreme Court agrees with my interpretation of the words (or, I guess to be more accurate, I agree with theirs). So, you can argue whatever you want about what you think the 2nd means; in Constitutional law, the meaning is settled.
Recent studies have found that many guns are actually aliens in disguise and they're using mind control to make Americans shoot each other. No really.
It's more a matter of seeing "It's the End of the World!!!" scenarios from the perspective of the Duck & Cover generation and a bit of knowledge about what the human race has survived thus far. That's Zombie's twist on my words. You're smarter than that. Americans commit murder...at a much higher rate than anyone else in the industrialized world, and without the fallback of religious reasons. The reasons you guys can't leave the house unarmed are, in my view, based in an unexamined mythology.
Nice try. That isn't going to fly either. A court just slapped down Chicago because they require a training course to get a gun license, but have zoned all shooting ranges out of the city limits. The court informed them that they must revise their zoning to permit a shooting range, primarily because the 2nd Amendment entails practice with a firearm. Anyone who thinks they're going to achieve gun control by putting a huge tax on bullets is going to get a real rude awakening from a federal court. And SCOTUS doesn't deny the militia connection of the 2nd Amendment (hell, *I* don't), it merely holds the word to the meaning it had when the Bill of Rights was adopted.
We also have the largest illegal drug market in the world. You figure that may play a role? Mythology? So you make it a point that America is so terribly violent, and then in the very next sentence, suggest that the reason Americans might want to carry is a myth?
Incidentally, in case anyone is wondering what the official Supreme Court ruling says, here is the holding from District of Columbia v. Heller (bold emphases mine):
