Pleasurepays

*sigh*

you made an assumption that i am really liberal and attacking right wing gun nuts. in fact, i am really very in the middle, come from a family of professional guides in Alaska and have owned more rifles, pistols and assualt rifles than most people on this board put together.

i dont think that the 2nd Amendment grants me the right to do anything except Join a militia (as defined by US Law) and own a weapon that is directly related to that specific need.

fact:

the 2nd Amendment uses the word "right"

fact:

NRA and similar wackos maintain that the 2nd Amendment grants them this "right to bear arms" and repeadly misquote the 2nd Amendment by leaving out the words "well regulated militia"

fact:

"Militia" is defined in US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Chapter 13, Section 311"

there are two types of militias. "organized" where specifically is mentioned, the National Guard and Naval Militia and unorganized militias which is everyone not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia

to say that "Jed" has the right to his assault rifle on the basis that the 2nd Amendment gives him that right... then you have to successfully argue that 2 coon dogs and his sister/wife compose an "organized militia" as defined by the US Government.

the 2nd Amendment does not say anything in there about your right to be a jerk off radical, with assault weapons and amour piercing bullets stashed under your floor in your little cabin in Northern Idaho because you are afraid of your own government. in fact, it does not mention your right to own amour piercing bullets, tanks, fighter planes, nuclear weapons or ICBM's.

the only test i am aware of as far as what weapon "may be" protected came with the case Miller vs United States where the judge decided that the gun he had (a sawed off shotgun) had no legitimate use in a militia and therefore was not in fact protected by the 2nd Amendment