Why aren't bombs covered by the "Right to Bear Arms"

Karl Hungus wrote:

I wish bombs were legal. I'd love to have claymores and IEDs in my front lawn.

yes. I will wire my lawn with cross-firing machine guns, with a small minefield around the back.

2A people are right to say that 'defense' weapons are all constitutional, and I am going to defend my home with whatever it takes.

agip wrote:

yes. I will wire my lawn with cross-firing machine guns, with a small minefield around the back.

2A people are right to say that 'defense' weapons are all constitutional, and I am going to defend my home with whatever it takes.

As well as you should. Unfortunately all the cool stuff is banned by treaty from 1980, otherwise I would suggest you also periodically liter your lawn with punji pits.

This ruling and Justice Scalia's opinion made a radical departure from the precedent established in United States v. Miller (1939).

" In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Scalia's opinion effectively removed the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part of the amendment.

I'm generally suspicious of legislation that attempts to restrict specific firearms (e.g. anti-gun people seem to want to ban any gun that even looks scary), but the NRA and its supporters have taken their opposition to any gun legislation to an absurd level. The NRA adamantly opposes background checks or mandatory gun safety training. I served in the military. A "well regulated militia" denies membership to individuals who are mentally unstable, and requires its members to bear arms safely and responsibly.

Karl Hungus wrote:

agip wrote:

yes. I will wire my lawn with cross-firing machine guns, with a small minefield around the back.

2A people are right to say that 'defense' weapons are all constitutional, and I am going to defend my home with whatever it takes.

As well as you should. Unfortunately all the cool stuff is banned by treaty from 1980, otherwise I would suggest you also periodically liter your lawn with punji pits.

I like the cut of your jib, brother

2nd amendment ....... wrote:

Scalia's opinion effectively removed the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" part of the amendment.

Baloney. It merely read it correctly as a preamble to the declaration of right, not as a condition limiting it. It's the equivalent of a series of "whereas" statements in a resolution or statement; the why, not the what.

There were plenty of lawyers and judges involved in drafting this. If they had meant "the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be restricted IF they are a member of a well-regulated militia," that is what they would have written.

It also doesn't say "well-regulated militia" is the only reason. Again, these were legal professionals and if that was what they meant, they'd have said so precisely. Its real meaning is only political - it's rhetoric they threw in there to make sure it would pass, a practice that continues in Congress today. Legally it means absolutely nothing.

Most of the constitution has been distorted beyond recognition because the Supreme Court is a political entity and reads it politically.

Batman Bread wrote:

Batman. That's who.

(all quoters of links must be band)

Give me the good old days when Batman was as ridiculous as intended. Enough of the self-indulgent "dark knight" melodrama.