...is enough to blow a cork. There it is in ink, that a right to keep a military weapon shall not be infringed. Yet, in no juristdiction is a modern fully automatic military weapon legal. What is there to ponder by the Supreme Court? It is obvious to any idiot that the 2nd amendment no longer applies to the 21st century, as our military no longer consists of minute men like it did at the time of the Constitution and gun ownership is not tied to military service.

The second amendment should me amended, by congress. And put to a popular vote, like any constitutional amendment. That is the only decision the Supreme Court can make.

seconded

So you believe rebellion, tyranny, armed gangs, etc. should be handled by the police and military in the "asphalt jungle" and "out on the farm"?

...craft time appropriate legislation in the form of an amendment and put it up for vote. That will consider your armed gangs (and LA has 83 of them right now?), NRA concerns, handgun ownership, etc. But the bottom line is, the 2nd Amendment the way it stands now, is irrelavent. There is nothing for the Supreme Court to ponder other then to declare it incompetent.

I hate to break the news to ya but their are still barbarians out their that would "attempt to enforce" laws of "The State of Great Britain" on everyone. I really don't care about your data because they attack each other "just to provide it".

intersurfa:

...is enough to blow a cork. There it is in ink, that a right to keep a military weapon shall not be infringed. Yet, in no juristdiction is a modern fully automatic military weapon legal. What is there to ponder by the Supreme Court? It is obvious to any idiot that the 2nd amendment no longer applies to the 21st century, as our military no longer consists of minute men like it did at the time of the Constitution and gun ownership is not tied to military service.

The second amendment should me amended, by congress. And put to a popular vote, like any constitutional amendment. That is the only decision the Supreme Court can make.

I added bolding in your quote for clarity

You are wrong.

The Federal Government does NOT prohibit citizens from owning full-auto weapons, short barrelled rifles/shotguns, etc.

Please read 18 USC sec. 921 et seq. (generally called Title 1 of the Gun Control Act) & Title 2 of the 1968 Gun Control Act is the National Firearms Act (26 USC sec. 5801 et seq.).

Under NFA, a citizen CAN own, possess, and use a "restricted weapon" as long as it's not prohibited by the state of residence.

I believe that at present 37 out of 50 states ALLOW NFA or "Class 3" weapons when legally obtained and the transfer tax is paid.

Knowledge is a wonderful thing and the InterNet makes it so easy to find reliable sources ... like BATFE.

Have a nice day!

"...Under NFA, a citizen CAN own, possess, and use a "restricted weapon" as long as it's not prohibited by the state of residence...."

I should have been a tad more clear on this.

There IS a legal (Federal law) way for a citizen to own a "military weapon" under NFA.

Please read it and stop spouting misconceptions and incorrect "facts".

I would recommend you start by reading:

<link>

Then we can talk.

Reading you is like watching taffy being pulled. Mangled logic, red herrings,unsupported conclusions, general bullshit and energetic Shill blather coupled with blithering disregard for the lessons that History teaches reveals you as glib, sneakily clever and very wrong. Do you work for News Corp. ?

If words could sue...

"...there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects."

I think that supports my point, the 2nd amendment is so vague, that it's meaningless. In one sentence, it defines right to bear arms as qualified by militia service. Justice Roberts hit the nail on the head, when he said that in history militias were disbanded by governments by simply locking up the arms in an armory and denying access. That is why the framers wanted the arms of the militia owned and kept by each individual militia member. That is what the subclause '...the right to own arms' means. What puzzles me though is that in normal logic, this would mean the 2nd amendment does not apply to ownership outside of military service. If the framers had intended to grant arms ownership to anyone, they would have included it in the individual rights, like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.

...crap. sure you can get a dealer's license to a fully automatic weapon, and you said in 37 out of 50 states. what happened to the other 13? not covered by the 2nd amendment?

i already had a nice day.

It IS an individual right, as are ALL of the other rights in The BoR. You and your delusional compadres are the ones that want to "cut it out of the herd" due to your view of "the way it should be" rather than the way it is.

BTW, have you ever been robbed, mugged or assaulted ? If so; tell us a story.

If not; shut the hell up because it's tiresome to read/hear what comes out of an uninformed ass.

the second amendment is the one before the supreme court and the one we're talking about here. until the supreme court rules whether it's an individual right, or a right of militiamen, you or any other asswipe can't claim it to be an individual right to bear arms. if you could read English, it qualifies the subject and the verb by a clause relating to the militia. In 1791 the US army was almost all exclusively consisten of the militia as there was no large standing army.

why you use a german phrase, the wrath of god, is beyond me because you're obviously some local yocal schizophrenic psychopath.

If a militia is a volunteer organization of civilians whos members are expected to furnish their own weapons, then the collective right cannot exist unless there is an individual right.

The question has been whether the 14th amendment extends the restriction to the states, and we have jurisprudence from just after ratification of that amendment which says "no."

My state extends this right to the individual. Does yours? (time to read your state's constitution...)