The 2nd Amendment draws no such line. There may be a technical military distinction, but there is no Constitutional distinction.
This cite does a much more thorough job of discrediting the “30” statistic (based on the DoD’s own documentation). There have been a few that have returned, but largely if you expand the definition of “return to the battlefield” to include participating in anti-US propoganda and relocating some of these activities to Turkey and Russia.
As much as I appreciate the effort, Justice Scalia’s honesty and/or awareness is wide of the mark, thread-wise. Its not like any news or current events was likely to penetrate the chitin-like armor of his opinions, so the question is more or less moot.
Yes and no. The Constitution expressly authorizes the Federal government to have a standing army and navy, with the President as it’s commander-in-chief, and with Congress voting to fund it, and to declare war. However the framers felt about standing armies, this was considered a concession to practical need. It is in line with other provisions of the Constitution that establish the Federal government as having a monopoly on foreign relations (which include fighting wars of course). This includes Article 1 Section 10, which expressly forbids the states from having their own independent professional state armies, except by federal permission.
The Bill of Rights came about precisely because the new Constitution which replaced the old Articles of Confederation greatly empowered the Federal government. It was agreed that the Constitution would be amended to address the states’ concern about the power of the federal government. The Second Amendment was one of these. Since the federal government was empowered to have a standing army, and the states were forbidden them, the 2nd guaranteed that the federal government couldn’t neutralize the militias (which relied on privately owned arms) by recognizing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
It was widely recognized at the time that half-trained citizen militias would never be as good man for man as a profressionally drilled army; yet this was regarded as a blessing in disguise. According to the political theories many of the framers held, dictatorship was the natural form of government for a state perpetually at war. Dictators would always find wars to start, and being perpetually at war would justify the power of the dictator. For a free people, the ideal was a republic that would mind it’s own business, stay at home, and live in peace. So it was envisioned that the militias would purposely be lousy at offense but good at defense. If we were invaded, the invading army would face the task of conquering and pacifying a nation where virtually every free citizen could be in possesion of a gun.
Speaking from experience, tanks are usually not issued to the average infantry soldier. Nor grenade launchers, for that matter.
Why? Why the use of that term again? Who are the gun nuts you’re talking about? How do you define gun nut, anyway?
Are people who want there to be no restrictions on the first amendment “free speech nuts?”
To some extent, the Supreme Court has already addressed this issue in United States v. Miller. In that case, they ruled that the Second Amendment specifically protected small arms such as would be used by individual soldiers in a contemporary military. So according to the SCOTUS, there’s no guarantee of an individual right to own a tank, a ground-to-air missile, or nuclear warhead.
So, the “you want everyone to have a nuke in their garage??!” argument has been a strawman since 1939.
Me, I’m hoping that the upcoming decision in Heller, coupled with the decision in Miller, will provide a foundation for finally getting rid of that absurd post-1986 machine gun ban.
Argent - You’ve asked DTC in this thread that question twice now. Airman has addressed it too.
I own guns DTC. I support the second amendment and think and hope that Heller will be overturned. Does calm debate about an upcoming SC decision make a person a nut if they don’t agree with you?
Self-righteous? Constantly doing it first? Does “their exploding substitute penises” ring a bell?
You use grade school insults to try to prove your point, and call others self-righteous?
Point well taken, but are there no “gun nuts?”
I define “gun nuts” who are absurdly fixated on the issue, who fetishize guns, who won’t stop talking about them, who are always angry about them, etc. It’s a subjective categorization. I recognize them by the way they bore me about the subject.
Rest assured, they aren’t the only ones with identifying “characteristics.”
Frankly, I’m not sure why the Mods allow DtC to constantly threadshit all over gun-related threads. It’s not like it’s a cogent argument or even on-topic. It’s just the same shit again and again.
The OP asked for opinions and invited people to complain.
I wouldn’t characterize someone who makes their every political choice according to his perception of a candidate’s stance on gun control to be a “gun nut” or “anti gun nut”, but under the dread and dire circumstances we face, pretty damn close.
This is a non-issue. We are awash with guns, there are millions of them. No legislation by the hand of man will effectively do anything about that. And they don’t spoil, they don’t rot, people have been killed by guns manufactured before they were born. * Old* people.
Now, I like rifles, I like the engineering, I like the accuracy. But I have no interest in plugging a hole in some animal who would prefer that I didn’t. But handguns are about people, they are about fear of people, penises don’t enter into it (though, if they did, it would make for some grisly entertainment in the ER…)
If you internalize that fear, you’ve already paid, if you pander to your fear by seeking some lethal deterrent to an enemy you may not even have, you’ve already lost, a part of your humanity is eroded, in the name of fear. I will not pay that price, YMMV.
I suggest the counter-label “gun phobe” for when the name-calling starts.
So, in your worldview, no one can appreciate the art and engineering of handguns? Somewhat nearsighted people (like myself), who aren’t terribly proficient with long guns (I can vaguely threaten a man-silhouette target at 300-400 yards by placing rounds in its general vicinity; when The Revolution comes, I’ll be laying down some wicked suppressive fire), have no recourse to target shooting activities?
People own handguns merely out of fear?
Pot, meet Kettle.
If you are bored about people talking about guns, people that have a bit of knowledge about guns, you don’t have to participate.
If you want to talk about penises, and nuts, It would be suited to IMHO. IMHO.
I did.
I can’t understand how you can be so insistently insulting about people that bore you. People that bore me get ignored.
You and I come from different ends of the same continuum to address the same problem. Is fear why I choose to carry a gun? No. I can and have gone without a gun for a good bit of my life. But having been a victim of numerous assaults, two of which were at gunpoint, I choose to position myself in the best way possible so that potential future assaults might be averted.
I understand that you don’t agree with me, but the least you can do is acknowledge that the concept has merit. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, it’s hard to see how there can ever be any sort of reconciliation between our two positions.
Speaking of humanity eroding, I have relatives who had their humanities eroded. I don’t mean figuratively either, I mean they decomposed in Nazi mass graves, because of a government that decided that the peoples’ lives should be in its hands and not in their own.
Being armed means your life is in your hands. Being disarmed means it’s not. It’s as simple as that, and I don’t give a fuck what anyone says.
Yeah, good luck fighting off the modern US military with your hunting rifle. :rolleyes:
And I don’t give a fuck about overly dramatic appeals to emotion.