Biden as a centrist

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Leaving the preface statement of purpose out of an abbreviated quote of the 2nd is disingenuous.
"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."
Given that authoritized well regulated present day state militias are issued standardized arms, it can be argued that the 2nd is an anachronistic obsolescent portion of the Constitution with no clear present day purpose, other than a justification for armed insurrection for any grievance against authority.

Because the proposition provides reasoning for the stated enumerated right. You can't raise a militia from a disarmed public. If government is providing the weapons then it's a military, not a militia.

[Pio1980]

Also, the term for rapid fire /high capacity semiautomatic firearms is rightly "tactical firearm" for purposes of regulation, tho such as "assault weaponry" is accepted and understood by most non-pedantic observers. In short, it is about purpose and application, rather than merely appearance.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

Because the proposition provides reasoning for the stated enumerated right. You can't raise a militia from a disarmed public. If government is providing the weapons then it's a military, not a militia.

They are still issued standardised arms, experienced or otherwise. So, not applicable.
There are afaik no authorized self-armed state militias.

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by Oerets

There is no sane reason for owning a military style weapon capable of sending rounds down range. A magazine of more then a few rounds is all that is ever needed.

There we go again. "Military style" means what?

Originally Posted by Oerets

After all only a foolish person would still think a citizen or group with a firearm can stand up to modern responses by authorities. A drone at 20K' with a 500lb'r or hellfire can take care of a lot of issues.

So you're trying to argue the military has too much capability compared to the public? Yes, I agree. That said, I draw the line at WMDs: no one should have those.

Originally Posted by Pio1980

There are afaik no authorized self-armed state militias.

Texas, to this day, still has a militia:
https://tmd.texas.gov/

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

There we go again. "Military style" means what?


So you're trying to argue the military has too much capability compared to the public? Yes, I agree. That said, I draw the line at WMDs: no one should have those.

You are arguing for the armed insurrection pretext. That was decided on the ground in 1865 and should have resulted in the repeal of the 2nd as a probable future pretext for another go-around armed insurrection.

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

You are arguing for the armed insurrection pretext. That was decided on the ground in 1865 and should have resulted in the repeal of the 2nd as a probable future pretext for another go-arpund armed insurrection.

Except it wasn't repealed.

Originally Posted by Not Insane

On the surface that may be true, but here is the problem: What do you mean by "justice".

Was thinking in the vein of criminal justice. Example: it is totally not okay for civilians to murder each other. The perpetrator always deserves a day in court for it.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

Except it wasn't repealed.


Was thinking in the vein of criminal justice. Example: it is totally not okay for civilians to murder each other.

Of course not, agreed.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

Except it wasn't repealed.


Was thinking in the vein of criminal justice. Example: it is totally not okay for civilians to murder each other. The perpetrator always deserves a day in court for it.

What about trespassing and destroying people's property?

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

They are still issued standardised arms, experienced or otherwise. So, not applicable.
There are afaik no authorized self-armed state militias.

I would have no problem with the ability of citizens to purchase the exact same personal arms used by our soldiers in battle - just like in the "old days".

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

So you're trying to argue the military has too much capability compared to the public? Yes, I agree. That said, I draw the line at WMDs: no one should have those.

Yep. Every right does have limits. That's why you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But other than that sort of red herring, the rights stand.