elliseamos wrote:It's not even an argument, Cricket.
Someone asked why are ARs necessary.
You said "to stop tyranny".
I asked "how do they stop tyranny?"
*crickets*
I can’t understand history for you. Try picking up a book.
Is this you invoking "Revolutionary War" & "Afghanistan War" as your explanation, again?
We already explained how these aren't suitable examples of what would exist in the United States, Cricket.
What would exist in the United States?
I already said that each example was a proxy war (France using revolutionaries to fight the British; USA & then Russia using the Afghans to fight each other respectively). Which is why having these guns in households is not what defeats tyranny.
Burt mentioned that it would be frustrating for the US Army to fight a contemporary revolutionary war, but that's a far cry from "defeating tyranny."
Unless someone, and I'm hoping History Professor Cricket would step forward since his comment started this, cares to explain it I'm failing to see how ARs in residential areas fends off tyranny.
Looking at a law review for a better explanation than I've received so far it's incredibly frustrating how few 2nd Amendment cases have gone to the Supreme Court.
Current law exists based on the individual right and completely glosses over the "well regulated militia" statement. Breyer points this out in Heller (I think).
That seems like the a major "purpose" of the amendment and were enrollment in a state-regulated militia part of the process to keep ARs in home, I might be better persuaded. As is, the reading is saying the citizens have this individual right to protect themselves but then go completely unchecked beyond that.
And that is my problem with the current position. Yes, it is a right to have guns. It is not meant/intended to be unregulated.
elliseamos wrote:Looking at a law review for a better explanation than I've received so far it's incredibly frustrating how few 2nd Amendment cases have gone to the Supreme Court.
Current law exists based on the individual right and completely glosses over the "well regulated militia" statement. Breyer points this out in Heller (I think).
That seems like the a major "purpose" of the amendment and were enrollment in a state-regulated militia part of the process to keep ARs in home, I might be better persuaded. As is, the reading is saying the citizens have this individual right to protect themselves but then go completely unchecked beyond that.
And that is my problem with the current position. Yes, it is a right to have guns. It is not meant/intended to be unregulated.
You've come across Miller, I presume? That's kind of the extent of the relation between an individual right to keep and bear arms and the militia.
