[Demarcus ware]

⬆⬆ An AR-15 extended mag? That's a military style, "mass kill" weapon.

Here's why i ask. According to which definition you want to use, whether it be the Defense Dept or some dictionary definition, assault rifle has been thrown around way too much. I can take the military style AR-15 and a .223 more for hunting and do the same damage. Why? because in order for those bullets to fire, you have to pull the trigger for every shot. UNLESS you have a selective switch which would make it a true assault rifle and allow you to shoot full auto. Which in the cases of these mass shootings isn't whats happened. Which brings us to now do we want to ban all Semi-auto weapons? In which case then you would be talking about rifles, pistols, and shotguns. I'm not going to get into the legal or not legal or what the 2nd amen says, because that wasn't the OP question. So i guess if you get right down to it, the only difference between that AR-15 and a .223 hunting rifle is the shape of it to look more like a military style rifle. (There is other differences but not really relevant to this topic) Yeah it looks meaner and more deadly but they can do the same job. I'm not trying to split hairs here or even argue, but if we head down that road where does it stop?

As an owner of many guns, including a 50 Cal that would blow a hole through your house, i'm all against the wrong people getting their hands on them. We have a system in place, but as with many things within our government it isn't being utilized. People that apply for guns, lie on their applications, but not prosecuted when caught is unacceptable. DOJ says they don't have the manpower, yet we are investigating Exxon for statements made against climate change nicker: Does that really make sense to anyone? If you are asking why people have Semi-Automatic weapons? Sometimes hunting requires more than one shot, sometimes it's just fun to shoot for recreation purposes, and it's handy for self defense whether it be a rifle, shotgun, or pistol.

[TheRealThing]

^^All this back and forth about banning assault weapons, is gun control hidden in verbosity. In other words, it is a rationalization of which on its face seems like common ground until one thinks it through.

Here is what I mean, look what you have as the result of the repeal of DADT. Remember the rationale, talking points, put forth as the perfect middle ground that time? 'They (gays) just want to be happy' the left wing social justice warriors claimed. And 'how could the rest of us deny those who have laid their lives down for this country that fundamental dignity,' they asked? Of course, such is merely a way to run over the constraints that stand in the way of what they like to call "moving forward," as it was God's law that had to be overturned or redefined in this case, in order to move forward. And do I even need to point out that no man has the authority to presume to overrule the Almighty? So now, even though DADT was supposed to affect only the US military, society at large now deals with it on a daily basis as the baby step under which it was sold to the masses, immediately became the preeminent consideration in the limelight of foreign and domestic policy maneuvering.

The exact same smoke screen is being run at us again, and I would not be at all surprised to see it succeed if this President has a thing to do with it. Which brings us to the aggregate of my argument; the baby step this time will be to ban what are known as assault weapons. Seriously, where it comes to guns, be they 2 shot derringer or AR 15, there are only two uses for guns outside of sport, and that is to assault someone or group, or in defense of such assault by someone or group. Only criminals murder other people, and gun control measures absolutely will not ever keep guns out of the hands of criminals. All it will do, owing to government listings of same, is cause the law abiding folks to be oppressed not only by would be criminals including lone wolf and organized terrorists, but by the tyranny of government itself, which today is rife with those who would like nothing better than to deny US taxpayers their second Amendment rights. And that is certainly one distinction between Republicans and Democrats.

In any event, just as in the case of the little compromise made to the LGBT community in repealing DADT, allowing the federal government which is supposed to be in service to the people BTW, to ban any particular class of guns by relabeling them as sinister or otherwise illegal, will open the floodgates of gun control. This is the inroad they are looking for, anyway to ban just one gun and they'll be off to the races. Just as surely as homosexuals, thanks to the repeal of DADT, vaulted from moral depravity to suddenly become a protected class. Any lucid minded citizen understands this simple truth.

[Demarcus ware]

^^All this back and forth about banning assault weapons, is gun control hidden in verbosity. In other words, it is a rationalization of which on its face seems like common ground until one thinks it through.

Here is what I mean, look what you have as the result of the repeal of DADT. Remember the rationale, talking points, put forth as the perfect middle ground that time? 'They (gays) just want to be happy' the left wing social justice warriors claimed. And 'how could the rest of us deny those who have laid their lives down for this country that fundamental dignity,' they asked? Of course, such is merely a way to run over the constraints that stand in the way of what they like to call "moving forward," as it was God's law that had to be overturned or redefined in this case, in order to move forward. And do I even need to point out that no man has the authority to presume to overrule the Almighty? So now, even though DADT was supposed to affect only the US military, society at large now deals with it on a daily basis as the baby step under which it was sold to the masses, immediately became the preeminent consideration in the limelight of foreign and domestic policy maneuvering.

The exact same smoke screen is being run at us again, and I would not be at all surprised to see it succeed if this President has a thing to do with it. Which brings us to the aggregate of my argument; the baby step this time will be to ban what are known as assault weapons. Seriously, where it comes to guns, be they 2 shot derringer or AR 15, there are only two uses for guns outside of sport, and that is to assault someone or group, or in defense of such assault by someone or group. Only criminals murder other people, and gun control measures absolutely will not ever keep guns out of the hands of criminals. All it will do, owing to government listings of same, is cause the law abiding folks to be oppressed not only by would be criminals including lone wolf and organized terrorists, but by the tyranny of government itself, which today is rife with those who would like nothing better than to deny US taxpayers their second Amendment rights. And that is certainly one distinction between Republicans and Democrats.

In any event, just as in the case of the little compromise made to the LGBT community in repealing DADT, allowing the federal government which is supposed to be in service to the people BTW, to ban any particular class of guns by relabeling them as sinister or otherwise illegal, will open the floodgates of gun control. This is the inroad they are looking for, anyway to ban just one gun and they'll be off to the races. Just as surely as homosexuals, thanks to the repeal of DADT, vaulted from moral depravity to suddenly become a protected class. Any lucid minded citizen understands this simple truth.

You're completely right, and here's the kicker. Assault weapons are already illegal if you go by the govt's own definition of Assault weapon. So the next logical step for them would to be try and reclassify a type of gun or change their definition all together to include semi-auto guns period. Between the gov't and MSM they are calling everything assault weapons. Just yesterday i heard Tom Brokaw say we needed to outlaw a gun that don't exist, he called it an AR-14. Granted a minor error but here we have some people that cling to every word of MSM so they take it and run with it. Adam Lanza took 4 guns to Sandy Hook and all we heard was assault weapon, when in fact none of them was an actual assault weapon. Once we start down this road, they can chip away the 2nd amendment a little at a time.

[The Urban Sombrero]

For 200 years, basically, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted as a collective right more than an individual one. "Well regulated militia" being defined as seminal to the overall structure. The idea of any private citizen, any weapon, any time is a new construct. I think the pornography standard is relevant here: "I may not be able to define obscene, but I know it when I see it." I may not can define precisely a military style "mass kill" weapon, but I know one when I see one. The preamble of the Constitution is relevant in interpreting the rest of it. Sometimes, "promote the general welfare" might figure in to gaining the scope of a right, so yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech. Now, some might argue that is a slippery slope, and is just a gradual chipping away at free speech. I would think, surely, that reasonable people could come up with some good definitions of what a military style "mass kill" weapon is, and likewise surely, come up with a process by which such weapons require an extremely stringent process in order for a private citizen to procure. In my view, this is not an unreasonable narrowing of the 2nd Amendment, when balanced with "promote the general welfare." All down the line, our Constitution is a delicate balancing act between rights and freedom and society and the government.

[Granny Bear]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.."

It appears to me that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is separated from a "well regulated militia".

As far as our Constitution being a delicate balancing act between rights and freedom and society and the government....that ship has sailed IMO.

We are no longer concerned with that balancing act or rights and freedoms. We have traded our common sense for political correctness.

As long as all the minorities aren't offended and the middle class continues to break their backs in order to support free cell phones, free healthcare and free STUFF to the parasites of society, we will have maintained the status quo that we have learned to accept by doing nothing.

[RunItUpTheGut]

"shall not be infringed upon" is pretty clear.

[The Urban Sombrero]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.."

It appears to me that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is separated from a "well regulated militia".

As far as our Constitution being a delicate balancing act between rights and freedom and society and the government....that ship has sailed IMO.

We are no longer concerned with that balancing act or rights and freedoms. We have traded our common sense for political correctness.

As long as all the minorities aren't offended and the middle class continues to break their backs in order to support free cell phones, free healthcare and free STUFF to the parasites of society, we will have maintained the status quo that we have learned to accept by doing nothing.

The "well regulated" part is a sort of preamble to the rest of the sentence: it informs the remainder. I would hope we would separate the working poor from the "won't work" poor. A married couple working at a Meijer or a Walmart is going to be right at the poverty line if they have a couple of kids.

[TheRealThing]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.."

It appears to me that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is separated from a "well regulated militia".

As far as our Constitution being a delicate balancing act between rights and freedom and society and the government....that ship has sailed IMO.

We are no longer concerned with that balancing act or rights and freedoms. We have traded our common sense for political correctness.

As long as all the minorities aren't offended and the middle class continues to break their backs in order to support free cell phones, free healthcare and free STUFF to the parasites of society, we will have maintained the status quo that we have learned to accept by doing nothing.

The "well regulated" part is a sort of preamble to the rest of the sentence: it informs the remainder. I would hope we would separate the working poor from the "won't work" poor. A married couple working at a Meijer or a Walmart is going to be right at the poverty line if they have a couple of kids.

Sombrero, you need to calibrate that smoke machine a little bit. Granny has it just exactly right. The militia and the citizen are separate entities. And regulated does not mean to find ones self under a state of regulation. Regulated in this case meant organized and equipped sufficiently to fulfill their duties as enlisted soldiers. The people, are not the soldiers, those are two distinctly separate groups.

And secondly, when I grew up there were a lot of things other kids had that my siblings and I did not. But even young-uns understand that sometimes people and their families are constrained by a lack of money. Adults certainly can grasp that very concept, which understanding in turn provides the motivating force to get off of their whiny backsides and go to work. The so-called working poor are not guaranteed cell phones and the government should not be handing free phones to out them. I know mine cost this household nearly 250.00 a month, and all these special carve outs like phones that the working class is forced to donate by the bleeding hearts of the this government are wrong.


I really wonder when the taxpayers are going to wake up and realize that Democrats and admittedly some Republicans, are extorting their money to buy the very votes that keep them in office. This is the land where equality of opportunity is guaranteed, not equality of earnings, nor should there be plush welfare funding. A safety net is one thing, but when we see food stamps being spent on luxury cruise ships, it's time to call in the dogs.

[Demarcus ware]

For 200 years, basically, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted as a collective right more than an individual one. "Well regulated militia" being defined as seminal to the overall structure. The idea of any private citizen, any weapon, any time is a new construct. I think the pornography standard is relevant here: "I may not be able to define obscene, but I know it when I see it." I may not can define precisely a military style "mass kill" weapon, but I know one when I see one. The preamble of the Constitution is relevant in interpreting the rest of it. Sometimes, "promote the general welfare" might figure in to gaining the scope of a right, so yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech. Now, some might argue that is a slippery slope, and is just a gradual chipping away at free speech. I would think, surely, that reasonable people could come up with some good definitions of what a military style "mass kill" weapon is, and likewise surely, come up with a process by which such weapons require an extremely stringent process in order for a private citizen to procure. In my view, this is not an unreasonable narrowing of the 2nd Amendment, when balanced with "promote the general welfare." All down the line, our Constitution is a delicate balancing act between rights and freedom and society and the government.

This was actually already done in 1994. It was the ten year ban on assault weapons i think it was called. They had a list of what qualifies guns as assault weapons. Then came along the Columbine high school shooting in 1999 and at least one of the guns on that list was used in that massacre. Then it wasn't renewed in 2004 when the ban expired. There's been several attempts to renew pretty much the same ban except they wanted to renew it with no time limit, but those attempts have failed.

As a gun person i don't want to see it. I would rather see the laws we have in place actually be used. What does making new laws accomplish if we don't utilize the laws we already have?

[RunItUpTheGut]

This was actually already done in 1994. It was the ten year ban on assault weapons i think it was called. They had a list of what qualifies guns as assault weapons. Then came along the Columbine high school shooting in 1999 and at least one of the guns on that list was used in that massacre. Then it wasn't renewed in 2004 when the ban expired. There's been several attempts to renew pretty much the same ban except they wanted to renew it with no time limit, but those attempts have failed.

As a gun person i don't want to see it. I would rather see the laws we have in place actually be used. What does making new laws accomplish if we don't utilize the laws we already have?

Reminds me of a certain immigrant problem were currently facing.
As a government, how can you pick and choose what laws to enforce?
If the federal government wont send in troops to take care of Colorados illegal drug trade, or sanctuary cities housing illegals, then why should we be forced to follow any federal laws?
Its not logical and absurd thinking.

[TheRealThing]

Reminds me of a certain immigrant problem were currently facing.
As a government, how can you pick and choose what laws to enforce?
If the federal government wont send in troops to take care of Colorados illegal drug trade, or sanctuary cities housing illegals, then why should we be forced to follow any federal laws?
Its not logical and absurd thinking.

How's that transformation working for ya? :biggrin:

[RunItUpTheGut]

How's that transformation working for ya? :biggrin:

As long as I can live until Jan 20th 2017 to watch Donald J Trump take office I will be assuredly fine :biggrin::rockon:

[Spirit100]

What's an ICBM fetch on the black market these days?

nicker:

[RunItUpTheGut]

What's an ICBM fetch on the black market these days?

nicker:

Not enough nicker:

[The Urban Sombrero]

Sombrero, you need to calibrate that smoke machine a little bit. Granny has it just exactly right. The militia and the citizen are separate entities. And regulated does not mean to find ones self under a state of regulation. Regulated in this case meant organized and equipped sufficiently to fulfill their duties as enlisted soldiers. The people, are not the soldiers, those are two distinctly separate groups.

And secondly, when I grew up there were a lot of things other kids had that my siblings and I did not. But even young-uns understand that sometimes people and their families are constrained by a lack of money. Adults certainly can grasp that very concept, which understanding in turn provides the motivating force to get off of their whiny backsides and go to work. The so-called working poor are not guaranteed cell phones and the government should not be handing free phones to out them. I know mine cost this household nearly 250.00 a month, and all these special carve outs like phones that the working class is forced to donate by the bleeding hearts of the this government are wrong.


I really wonder when the taxpayers are going to wake up and realize that Democrats and admittedly some Republicans, are extorting their money to buy the very votes that keep them in office. This is the land where equality of opportunity is guaranteed, not equality of earnings, nor should there be plush welfare funding. A safety net is one thing, but when we see food stamps being spent on luxury cruise ships, it's time to call in the dogs.

I am going to restate a point: there is a difference between the working poor and the "won't work" poor. Now, whether that difference has anything to do with free cell phones others will have to decide. For 200 years, basically, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted by the SCOTUS as a collective right, not an any citizen, any gun, any time right. Again, to consider the scope of a right, as it exists in relation to other Constitutional principles, is something the Framers intended.

[Granny Bear]

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]


I copied and pasted this^^^ but I can't use the bold or italics feature on it for some reason. I don't want anybody to think I'm taking credit for this statement.

However, I disagree with your statement Sombrero and this is one of several reasons why I do.

I have re-read that amendment, and still believe that there are two separate issues there.
You may be correct, but I don't interpret it that way.

[Pulp Fiction]

I'm not gonna read all the posts in this thread......

Those of you calling an AR-15 an 'Assault Rifle' have no idea what you are talking about.
The AR in AR-15 means Armalite Rifle model 15. The 'AR' is Armalite Rifle & the 15 is the model number. The liberal media and politicians have brainwashed the masses in to believing that AR means 'Assault Rifle'.


There is a direct relationship why the worst mass shooting in U.S. history took place at what was deemed a 'Gun Free' zone as well as a 'Safe Area' for the LGBTQ community as opposed to the NRA convention in Louisville last month.

Let's be honest, we all know somebody with at least one AR-15, or similar type of long rifle, maybe more. If the AR-15 was really that dangerous, there would be thousands of people killed daily by them. Not just TERRORIST who invade a Gun Free zone knowing that they can kill a great number of people without resistance.

Give credit to the Orlando Police Department S.W.A.T. for making the entry on the nightclub building and killing the shooter and freeing the 30+ hostages.




Now to the question.... "why does any private citizen need an assault rifle?"
- As we have learned over the course of history, the heart of man is evil. I could list thousands of different devices humans have used to killed one another. So asking why does a private citizen need an 'Assault Rifle' is like asking "why does a private citizen need any type of knife?" It's not the object, it is the person using the object.
Example
Why does any private citizen drink alcohol and drive???? You explain that one to me.... let's make a push to ban Alcohol & Vehicles the next time there is a drunk driving fatality.

- I respect the police, state/federal agencies and our military. But each American citizen does not get assigned their own personal security detail like elected politicians and dignitaries. I've never been escorted by a thirty man Secret Service detail from place to place (who carry multiple fully automatic weapons all the time). I'm sorry, but nobody's life is more valuable than mine. Me and my family will not be a victim of terrorism.
Just because you don't understand or agree, doesn't mean it's wrong.




Lastly, here are a few things to think about.
- We protect our elected officials & dignitaries with GUNS.
- We protect our money/gold with GUNS.
- When the police respond to a crime, they bring GUNS.
- When our military gets deployed to a hostile environment or come to rescue hostages, they bring GUNS.
- We protect our court systems/Judges with GUNS.
- We protect celebrities/pro athletes with GUNS.
- Prisons/Jails use GUNS to keep inmates from escaping.

So what makes you believe that your family or my family doesn't deserve the same type of protection and security as the people/places/things I've listed above?



THE ONLY THING THAT STOPS A BAD GUY WITH A GUN IS A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN.

[Pulp Fiction]

Imagine being in rural Pike County after a major snow storm.... the electric is out and the cell phone towers are down. Roads are impassible. Night begins to fall, it's you, your spouse and two kids in the house. Your closet neighbor is two miles away.

Then you begin to hear banging on your back door.... somebody is trying to break in your house.

You can't get ahold of the any police department.... do you
(A) Gather your family up and cower in a closet hoping the robbers won't rape your wife and little girl, then kill your entire family?
OR
(B) Do you shoot them before they make entry in to your house?

[TheRealThing]

I am going to restate a point: there is a difference between the working poor and the "won't work" poor. Now, whether that difference has anything to do with free cell phones others will have to decide. For 200 years, basically, the 2nd Amendment was interpreted by the SCOTUS as a collective right, not an any citizen, any gun, any time right. Again, to consider the scope of a right, as it exists in relation to other Constitutional principles, is something the Framers intended.

And those rights are granted us by Whom?

[The Urban Sombrero]

We the people ratified and adopted a Constitution, and elected a representative body sworn to uphold it. To my knowledge, that still holds.

[TheRealThing]

We the people ratified and adopted a Constitution, and elected a representative body sworn to uphold it. To my knowledge, that still holds.

So you, like the others of the liberal persuasion, insist on sidestepping the part which states we are each of us granted certain “unalienable rights” as fixed rights given to us by our Creator rather than by government. The emphasis on our Creator is crucial, because it shows that the rights are permanent just as the Creator is permanent. [Breitbart]

In what way do you see the right of free speech's scope to be regulated under the constitution or in the minds of the Framers? The scope of any right was never intended to be continually redefined by the self appointed of the day, according to the founding documents. In any case, you're dressing up your argument for gun control in a powdered wig. And, it's the same old story and tired tactic which is always employed by the left. Rename, repackage or otherwise re-spin the tired tenets of social justice as if they had the first thing to do with our founding when in fact, they were part of lunacy or err of the very European governance of which they chose to escape, ultimately forming the government of this great land.

But to me, your argument is washed away by one phrase of DC vs Heller, with regard for defining who is to be regulated where gun ownership is concerned; "for traditionally lawful purposes." Lawful citizens are a free people and are to be honored and treated as such. Now, and here is where the liberal machinery runs off the track, the unlawful are not extended such rights or privilege. They are to be dealt with under the law.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" extending to the any citizen any weapon any time interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Justice Stevens, dissenting in HELLER, in my view, rightly suggests a rightward jurist is just as capable of making new law and not just interpreting old documents.

[TheRealThing]

⬆⬆ "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" extending to the any citizen any weapon any time interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Justice Stevens, dissenting in HELLER, in my view, rightly suggests a rightward jurist is just as capable of making new law and not just interpreting old documents.

Thusly usurping the people and their elected delegates as defined by Madison, to be ruled instead by 5 crusty appointees on what are undoubtedly political grounds. Gotcha. :Thumbs:

[The Urban Sombrero]

If the SCOTUS were to determine that the 2nd Amendment did not cover sawed-off shotguns, as it once did, or military style "mass kill" weapons, as it might in the future, and if the reason be "promote the general welfare," I am not going to think that the end of "the American experiment" is nigh. Further, I don't think interpreting the 2nd Amendment must be, of necessity, a partisan political act. I think one could contemplate "promoting the general welfare," look at the phrase "well regulated," and conclude the 2nd Amendment did not envision any citizen any gun any time.

[SKINNYPIG]

Please excuse my bluntness. At this point in history, anyone that thinks ANY kind of additional gun control laws or ANY more banning of semi automatic rifles will have ANY affect on anything that has happened or will happen, simply is not thinking. There's probably hundreds of avenues to focus on that "might" thwart future terrorist attacks, why SCOTUS or anyone else in government turns their focus towards any type of gun control as an avenue completely blows my mind.

[TheRealThing]

If the SCOTUS were to determine that the 2nd Amendment did not cover sawed-off shotguns, as it once did, or military style "mass kill" weapons, as it might in the future, and if the reason be "promote the general welfare," I am not going to think that the end of "the American experiment" is nigh. Further, I don't think interpreting the 2nd Amendment must be, of necessity, a partisan political act. I think one could contemplate "promoting the general welfare," look at the phrase "well regulated," and conclude the 2nd Amendment did not envision any citizen any gun any time.

And there in the midst of your contemplations and the resultant ill advised conclusions attached thereto, you'd find yourself firmly entrenched among a very small minority of liberal true believers; Desperately searching for the right catch phrase to effectively do another DADT-esque flyby on the American public. This time however, I do not believe you're going to see it happen, that is the American people accepting gun control . As you point out the SC did outlaw sawed off shotguns at one point, the bias of that ruling was later recognized and the Justices overturned their own decision.

You cannot hope to drag out some dishwater weak misinterpretation of a phrase like "well regulated," taking it completely out of context, then add further insult to injury in redefining it's true meaning and expect the people to stand idly by and watch the second Amendment get struck down because they have been sufficiently hazed, not this time.

[SKINNYPIG]

Imagine being in rural Pike County after a major snow storm.... the electric is out and the cell phone towers are down. Roads are impassible. Night begins to fall, it's you, your spouse and two kids in the house. Your closet neighbor is two miles away.

Then you begin to hear banging on your back door.... somebody is trying to break in your house.

You can't get ahold of the any police department.... do you
(A) Gather your family up and cower in a closet hoping the robbers won't rape your wife and little girl, then kill your entire family?
OR
(B) Do you shoot them before they make entry in to your house?

Exactly! When an American feels threatened in their home they should be able to defend themselves with whatever makes them happy, even if it is a .223 caliber semi automatic rifle. These fools saying no one "needs" an AR-15 to protect themselves are ignorant and have no idea what's prowling around in urban areas of most states. We should protect our homes with all the firepower we can muster (if we so choose), while praying we never have to.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And there in the midst of your contemplations and the resultant ill advised conclusions attached thereto, you'd find yourself firmly entrenched among a very small minority of liberal true believers; Desperately searching for the right catch phrase to effectively do another DADT-esque flyby on the American public. This time however, I do not believe you're going to see it happen, that is the American people accepting gun control . As you point out the SC did outlaw sawed off shotguns at one point, the bias of that ruling was later recognized and the Justices overturned their own decision.

You cannot hope to drag out some dishwater weak misinterpretation of a phrase like "well regulated," taking it completely out of context, then add further insult to injury in redefining it's true meaning and expect the people to stand idly by and watch the second Amendment get struck down because they have been sufficiently hazed, not this time.

You speak of "striking down the 2nd Amendment." I would not agree that the amendment was "struck down" if military style "mass kill" weapons had an extremely stringent regulatory process before an individual citizen could procure. What you are engaging in is argument of the extreme, and that is a logical fallacy. Is the only choice either that family in Pike County cower in the corner, or maw and paw and brother and sister grab an AR-15? I thought we were discussing military style, "mass kill" weaponry, NOT a Nazi style roundup of all weapons.

[The Urban Sombrero]

A "well regulated militia" forms the introductory aspect of the sentence, and, thus, informs the rest of it. That is not semantics or interpretation. That is the English language.

[The Urban Sombrero]

It sounds to me like several posters on this thread believe "any weapon any citizen any time" was the intent of the Framers. Or, they want what weapon they want when they want it and don't really give a damn about the Framers, unless the Framers agree with them.