Bushmaster

[BT]

Interesting enough that in United States v. Miller, which preceded Heller as the definitive Scotus ruling concerning the 2nd, sawed off shotguns were allowed to be regulated because the justices erroneously thought that sawed off shotguns were not part of the Army Ordnance and thus had no bearing on the unorganized militia clause.

[sirs]

Interesting.....so, if I'm reading this right, which I could easily not be, the closer the look of a weapon to that of the military kin, the less government is allowed to "regulate them"?

[Xavier_Onassis]

A sawed off shotgun loaded with buckshot is a VERY GOOD deterrent to an attack by any armed person.

I don't know whether the Army issues them or not, but I am pretty sure that there are at least a few in the hands of troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps elsewhere.

The whole idea that there is a "well-regulated militia" consisting of men (and perhaps women, there has been no ruling on that) who are totally unaware that they are a part of an "organized militia". is a joke.

Militias were common in Missouri until the time of the Civil War. I don't know how well men were trained, but there was a standing militia. When the Civil War started, the local yokels attempted to take possession of the weapons stored in the militia's forts, and in some cases succeeded.  The elected governor of MO proclaimed the secession of MO from the Union, but the commandant of the garrison in St Louis took Jefferson City and proclaimed the secession as never having happened. MO had an exile government in Texas until the defeat of the CSA.
After the Civil War, the militias were not reconstituted, because there was a lot of animosity on both sides. Similar events occurred in other states.

[BT]

According to the Miller decision the unorganized militia was part of the framers plans to avoid a standing army.This militia was to bring it's own weapons to the fray, thus the need to keep pace with those ordnance issued to the regular militias and the Army.

BTW they did use sawed off shotguns during WWI primarily while guarding prisoners but also during trench fighting. The Army order 40k of them for the troops.

I am not a gun owner. I do not belong to the NRA. I am not a gun nut. But the 2nd has little to do with hunting, or what a person needs. It is about defending yourself, you loved ones, and your property from enemies foreign and domestic.

It just pisses me off when people make up shit as they go along.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Second Amendment no longer has much to do with hunting, but when it was written, it most certainly did. The Founding Fathers had no power to confiscate guns from anyone, by the way. I doubt that the states could have done this, either.

In a country where most of the people live in the country and depend on hunting to feed themselves, which was what this country was in the 1780's, it was certainly important. And again, the guns then were one shot muzzle loading black powder weapons, not anything like what was used to massacre all those children.

[sirs]

The Second Amendment no longer has much to do with hunting

IT NEVER HAD MUCH TO DO WITH HUNTING.  IN FACT IT NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING.  DID THE 1ST AMENDMENT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING??  THE 4TH??  THE 5TH??

The Founding Fathers had no power to confiscate guns from anyone, by the way.

So now that they potentially have that power....that justifies it in your mind??  Do you even grasp what you'd be implying??  PRECISELY that which the founders were trying to protect us from, via the Constitution & Bill of Rights   

In a country where most of the people live in the country and depend on hunting to feed themselves, which was what this country was in the 1780's, it was certainly important. And again, the guns then were one shot muzzle loading black powder weapons, not anything like what was used to massacre all those children.

So, on Xo's planet Oppressive, not only would the law abiding not have anything to defend themselves with, but if by the grace of the almighty government you did have something, it'd be 1 shot....so that as the 4 hoodlums come at you, you can at least try to take out 1 before you get slaughtered, by the others.     

[BT]

Crank it back a notch or two Sirs.

Certainly the 2nd had some to do with hunting as the 2nd was meant to protect  the the right to bear arms in order to protect life, liberty, and property. Hunting using a tool such as a long gun would aid in that pursuit of happiness as a full belly makes one happier than an empty one.

[sirs]

No, it wasn't BT.  It had NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment.  No more than any other of the Bill of Rights.  The fact it didn't interfere with hunters isn't why the founders wrote the 2nd amendment.  To protect AGAINST AN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT's efforts to take away a person's life, liberty, and property.  Not an oppressive bear     

[Plane]

In the "bill of rights" there are enumerated rights and certain limits on how much the government may affect those rights.

There is no admendment to protect blacksmithing , farming or throwing pots, the first ten admendments are not about livelyhood.

The Second admendment made sense to the people who wrote it, it made sense to the people who ratified it and it made sense to the people generally , it protected a right.

No , not the right of the army to be armed , that is silly.

Not the right of the people to hunt , that is kinda silly too.

It is the right to make onself dangerous , is it not?

The government s right to make you shut up is limited in the first admendment and the governments ability to make you harmless against your will is limited in the second admendment.

[BT]

So you are saying that hunting with a rifle did not happen in 1789( and i know you aren't)? The second was not written to enshrine the right to hunt, I never claimed it was, but it certainly was written to allow the bearing of arms one of which purposes could be hunting.

But just as the 2nd did not enumerate the right to hunt it didn't enumerate the right to overthrow an oppressive government. It simply enumerates the right to bear arms.

[Plane]

So you are saying that hunting with a rifle did not happen in 1789( and i know you aren't)? The second was not written to enshrine the right to hunt, I never claimed it was, but it certainly was written to allow the bearing of arms one of which purposes could be hunting.

But just as the 2nd did not enumerate the right to hunt it didn't enumerate the right to overthrow an oppressive government. It simply enumerates the right to bear arms.

Where and why would a right to hunt need to be in an admendment? There is no other job description protected so.
There is no enumerated right to gather food in any other means .

The constitution was written by revolutionarys , they had fought a king who had ordered them disarmed.
Everything in the constitution was argued over , some things were compromises .
But none of the members of the constitutional convention wanted the USA to be a lot like the regime they had just overthrown.

So the second admendment is a lot like the forth , it forbids one of the things the king did that bothered them.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What the Second Amendment DOES state is that the right to bear arms is necessary for a"well-regulated militia". This does not apply to the National Guard anymore, since the Guard gets all its weapons from the national government.

The "Well-Regulated Militia" does not exist in this country,and has not existed for a really long time, since before the Civil War.

No militia could be "well-regulated" unless the members knew they were members.

[sirs]

So you are saying that hunting with a rifle did not happen in 1789( and i know you aren't)? The second was not written to enshrine the right to hunt, I never claimed it was, but it certainly was written to allow the bearing of arms one of which purposes could be hunting.

But just as the 2nd did not enumerate the right to hunt it didn't enumerate the right to overthrow an oppressive government. It simply enumerates the right to bear arms.

You're making my point....that the 2nd amendment doesn't infringe on hunters doesn't defacto make it about, or even "much to do with" hunting, which is what Xo keeps referring to. 

It has everything to do, about attempting to protect us from an oppressive government

[sirs]

What the Second Amendment DOES state is that the right to bear arms is necessary for a"well-regulated militia". This does not apply to the National Guard anymore, since the Guard gets all its weapons from the national government.

The "Well-Regulated Militia" does not exist in this country,and has not existed for a really long time, since before the Civil War.

That matter has already been addressed......and debunked, not to mention put to rest by the recent SCOTUS ruling.  I mean, you can keep arguing a non point.....knock yourself out

[Plane]

What the Second Amendment DOES state is that the right to bear arms is necessary for a"well-regulated militia". This does not apply to the National Guard anymore, since the Guard gets all its weapons from the national government.

The "Well-Regulated Militia" does not exist in this country,and has not existed for a really long time, since before the Civil War.

No militia could be "well-regulated" unless the members knew they were members.

Fine , training is a good idea for people who are going to carry a gun , even just a little bit.

Would a standardised training in firearms help?
http://www.odcmp.com/

We may have to stop waiting for people to volenteer , as you are pointing out , truely, too many people are unaware that their govenor or President or community has a right to call on them as a militia.