SOOOOO ridiculous, also ridiculous that military and paramilitary forces around the world rely on this loose category of weapons as the primary firearm for people whose job description consists of "killing as many people as they can". It's all just politics. ****ing military.
I imagine 50 years from now, there will still be fringe groups trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment and they'll still have little to no support.
For all we know, there could still be some prohibitionists hanging around. There will always be people trying to strip the people of their civil liberties.
i think people over time people will evolve and become more peaceful. you could also have certain tech that could become more readily accessible, that no matter what you do with guns people will have the means to kill innocent swaths of people. by the way man you sound like a broken record. something very well could happen that is so bad public perception of guns in this country will till so far out of favor that things could change. generations die off and racist/bitter/homophobic people fade away. why would the younger generations want guns anyways. that will take up too much time from selfies and social media.
Back then did most militia bring their own weapons? That would explain the simplicity of the language.
85% of Americans support stronger gun control laws. Large Majority of Americans—Including Gun Owners One day all the dinosaurs like bobby will die off and America will be a saner place.
All militia would bring their own weapons because the militia is a civilian force.....and they'd bring the same type of weapons that military and paramilitary forces around the world relied on as the primary firearm for people whose job description consists of "killing as many people as they can". The point of the 2nd amendment is that a defenseless civilian population is a bad thing. I know you aren't bright enough to understand that the very broad "stronger gun control laws" in no way suggests support for repeal of the 2nd amendment, but I feel like pointing it out anyway.
Well, the meaning of the 2nd amendment, as it had been historically interpreted, has changed in recent decades. He was probably OK with that.
Remember that the 2008 Supreme Court decision was on a 5-4 vote and that decision answer a narrow question: The prior and even that decision allow for gun regulations and restrictions. Folks want to impress that it's a clear direction with little rooms for regulation. It is not. Gun can be heavily regulated. And it's that not far from be banned given the close decision... a few generations ahead of continuing lack of smart regulation to reduce gun violence and a public that mature to the task of either regulating guns or ridding of it. Opinion can change fast. 60% of Americans favor banning hand guns to the general public (that's right, not regulating, but banning) just within the last 100 years. It's now at ~25%. With a super large majority of Americans wanting more gun control, if the NRA and their like keep pushing against any and all control while gun violence continue yearly, I think sooner or later the tide is going to turn.
What is the status of militia today? Are they legal? I know they are denigrated-- some maybe rightly so. Are we acting like the British loyalists might have by trying to dis-empower militia mentality?
Humm... Organized militia is the National Guard. Unorganized (also refer to as reserve) is not. I guess all US citizen that are not in the National Guard, are all part of the unorganized militia until after 45 or prior to 17. I would said organized is also well regulated, while unorganized is not regulated. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
