[tpaine]

I would make the case for any weapon short of WMDs. But I won't make it with you, you can't even be reasonable enough with handguns.
Again, Miller didn't mention "average", the ruling used "ordinary", big difference. So if the USSC followed Miller then I should be able to own a shoulder fired anti-tank weapon. Those are quite ordinary to the military.

Here's another "gun nut" on that same issue.

"--- Yes, I support the Second Amendment. And I make no bones about its purpose or to whom it applies. It was not put in place so Bill and Hillary Clinton could go duck hunting with a shotgun or so Barbara Steisand could carry a derringer in her purse to stave off overzealous fans. It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad. As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to park fully operational Sherman tanks in our garages and commute via fighter planes (if we wish). Now, personal nukes capable of taking out large cities.... hmmmm.... I don't know if I want to trust some of the crazier antiwar libs with those. --"
1,219 posted on 04/17/2003 5:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

[Eaker]

Great quote there!

[American_Centurion]

Nice. I have never seen that, good to know I see eye to eye with JimRob on this.

RP, looks like you are out of sync with more founders than you realized. Ha!