General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe "well regulated" part of the 2A
Would this be an accurate statement to summarize without getting all gun wonky?
There is absolutely no reason to be selling rounds and weapons of war to civilians.
Or would that be accurately countered with, "they aren't weapons of war".
I'm trying to distill this down.
So frustrating.
rampartc
(5,407 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Many early Revolutionary war battles went badly because poorly skilled militia were up against professional soldiers. It wasn't until we got Baron Friedrich von Steuben that the Continental army was able to match the soldiers of Great Britain. The reason it says "militia" is the founders considered standing armies to be detrimental to freedom, such that the army would be composed of state trained militias if it needed to be called up. This of course was obsolete after the Napoleonic wars, where it was demonstrated that professional armies were a necessity.
The well regulated provision today is maintained via the National Guard, which is the modern state militia.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Not arms or the people. There is also a dispute as to the meaning of well-regulated in the context of militia (i.e., well outfitted and well trained versus restricted by law/rules).
Nevertheless, we can still have discussion about how we can regulate (restrict by law and rules) firearms.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Full auto machine guns have been effectively banned since 1986.
No army uses semi-auto weapons.
If you're talking about a certain caliber, then hunting rifles use the same (or larger) rounds.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Guns can be highly regulated. Including high capacity rifles like those used it almost every mass murder.
The problem is not the 2nd amendment. Its lack of political will. Hell, even the Democratic Party platform upholds Americans right to own firearms. But also calls for reasonable regulation. Including an assault weapons ban.