Replies

I don’t see what any of that in your post has anything to do with the right to bear arms.

You even say it refers to the CITIZENS.

Slaves are freed and blacks are now citizens with full rights. Women now have full rights. If you really tried hard, you might be able to make the argument that only land owners registered to vote are eligible for second amendment rights. But that would be a very hard sell. There’s no way you can read it as excluding women and blacks.

But now that we’ve broached the subject of the “militia”, I want to review the assault gun ban. Shouldn’t a “militia” be granted unobstructed access to standard battle weapons? That means sidearms and basic army infantry rifles...aka the M16! And also body armor, night vision, armor piercing rounds, and whatever else they come up with in the future.

Grenade launchers, mortars, machine guns and sub machine guns...these could be argued not “standard” infantry weapons and might then require some additional qualifications...so maybe unrestricted access could be argued against.

But how the he11 could anyone argue against access to a glock, colt or baretta pistol or a plain standard 3 round burst M16?

Shouldn’t a “militia” be granted unobstructed access to standard battle weapons? That means sidearms and basic army infantry rifles...aka the M16! And also body armor, night vision, armor piercing rounds, and whatever else they come up with in the future.

Interestingly, many laws restricting gun ownership is based on the claim that they "had no military use" and were therefore supposedly not protected. Note that New York State took that approach...but when convenient, they have now banned military weapons and are deceitful, dishonest creatures about equal to slimemolds. IANAL, but that's how I see it.

There’s no way you can read it as excluding women and blacks.

Especially given that the ratification debates on the Fourteenth Amendment clearly indicated that its intent was to prohibit state laws (the "Black Codes") which purported to deny various rights (specifically including the RKBA) to the freedmen.

But now that we’ve broached the subject of the “militia”, I want to review the assault gun ban. Shouldn’t a “militia” be granted unobstructed access to standard battle weapons? That means sidearms and basic army infantry rifles...aka the M16! And also body armor, night vision, armor piercing rounds, and whatever else they come up with in the future.

Actually, according to the Miller decision, you're right. According to the SCOTUS, a "sawed off shotgun" can be outlawed, since it's not a weapon applicable to the "militia." Yet another example of the courts not knowing a damn thing about those things upon which they're ruling.

Mark