HO88
lol, OMDP you keep arguing a stance which you have no base. Who is going to decide what arm is "legal"? If people like the Brady bunch had there way nothing but a single shot musket would be legal. Is that acceptable?QUOTE]
WHo is going to decide what arms are legal and not? The govt. Is it acceptable to ban all weapons but a single shot musket? Of course not. I am clarifying my point. The point is the militia is protected through individuals having arms.
The govt can ban certain weapons, however they cannot ban weapons to distort the market so that individuals cannot get weapons which are considered useful for the militia.
Ie, the militia needs modern weapons, and the militia needs a healthy supply, the govt cannot do anything which prevents this.
Anyone find it funny that OMDP is from the UK but arguing a talking point which effects Americans?
Here we go again. This is not an original "argument" in any way. My nationality does not affect my arguments, so just leave it out.
He really has no ground to tell Americans what the US constitution "should be".
And for the last time, it clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Hmm, freedom of speech's main purpose was designed so people could talk about such things. So in fact i have PLENTY of ground to give my opinion on any topic i choose.
It clearly states somethings which in the context you have put it means something different.
Keep means own, bear means to be in the militia.
The 2A does not and has never said, clearly or otherwise, that all arms are protected. In fact it has never protected the right of firearms to exist, to be owned or to be bourne in any manner.
IE no banning of guns to citizens.
What is says is that the people shall not be prevented from being able to keep and bear arms by the federal govt. By banning sawn off shotguns, citizens can still keep and bear arms.