Federal judge issues opinion that people have the right to make their own unserialized firearms

not an arm-its best seen as ordnance. try again

 

"WhoDat, your order for 5000 lbs of Acme ammonium nitrate is arriving in 5, 4, 3, 2..."

 

The militia is not so well-regulated anymore, lol.

 

What is the meaning? If I can hold it with two hands, I can use it for the well-regulated militia? So if we developed an anti-matter gun (2 grams = hiroshima) I could destroy cities in self-defense? I know I'm being flippant, but seriously, what's the definition?

 

That's because so few people have fire arms.

 

It's as well regulated as Congress has voted to make it. No one else's opinion matters.

 

a weapon suitable for individual self defense that a citizen would normally keep and bear and which is neither artillery nor ordnance.

 

His ruling is correct and I believe that has already been established anyway.

 

DC v Heller reiterated that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes.

Annihilating a city "in self defense" lol isn't lawful purposes.

 

She but yeah.

Oh wait I'm not sure if I can make that claim as I'm not a biologist... Lol

 

"Bearable arms " = weapons in common use for traditionally legal purposes.

 

It is exactly as well-regulated a Congress intends it to be.
Never mind that "well regulated" modifies "militia", while the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd, is held by the people.

 

why not tell me your definition. I give you mine based on my many years study of the constitution, and the fact I have lectured on the bill of rights at several major law schools. The underlying natural right the founders sought to guarantee was that of self defense.,

 

Because criminals who would risk the penalty for committing murder would not dare risk the penalty for not having a number on a gun.!!!

 

A bit unusual but I'm not really taking a firm position. Just trying to see where people with an informed opinion think the lines should be. Though I do not think I agree with the concept of natural rights IIRC. I am not particularly liberal on gun control for the same reasons I am against drug prohibition, but I am not thinking it really matters for checking government tyranny either and the line must be somewhere since conservatives don't want whole other countries to have nukes.

 

Uh huh that's why they put it in the same sentence. Though I would never accuse them of clarity.

 

Interesting idea. Hunting, target practice, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, lol. I guess the last one is legal if you win.

 

Patriots the tree of Liberty is watered with the blood of patriots.

The last is not legal but when it comes to that it doesn't matter.

Police can be tyrants so we have seen it. Having an offensive weapon against them is exactly why the Second amendment exists.

 

"Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason."

John Harrington

 

Where should the line be drawn?

 

Your inability to present a meaningful rebuttal, noted.

 

Your inability to present a meaningful rebuttal, noted.
Again.

 

You missed self defense and defense of others, as well as defense of nation.

 

Does such a weapon exist?

 

Your lazy lack of comprehension is noted.

The 2nd amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Somehow you assume these are two separate statements. It is written as one statement, even with words that show the first two clauses build the case for the last two. If they were meant to be separate things, at the very least it should be two separate sentences (statements).