Not at all. Suggest a writer and particular writing and we can discuss. You're being quite vague - pick something that one of the writers of the 2nd amendment wrote which you claim contradicts my statements. Your choice.

Why? Because I'm a gun owner who can be honest about the constitution as well as the political realities of one 'Honorable' Justice Scalia?

There are conservative Justices worthy of respect, Scalia is not one of them.

It's a 930 - I use it to hunt too. It certainly puts holes in things though.

My Dad told that they had them firing Thompson's in UDT school in 1962 and that the damn thing almost lifted him right over when firing full auto.

It's not the tax stamp that gets you (iirc it's around $200) it's that there's a limited supply of pre-1996 full auto weapons in the U.S. (would have been a great time to have these in stock!) I hear that MP-40's go for $20k.

Anyhow, the mish-mash of legislation is because no one can sit down and have a rational discussion about guns sadly.

The problem isn't you though ;) - it's the rest of the irresponsible majority.

Personally, a mossberg is more than enough self defense for me. I use the Mark 23 because I have big hands and it's a great target shooting weapon.

Oh, you mean I should read Scalia's *opinion* (which is what you linked to) about what it is supposed to mean despite 4 of the supreme court justices claiming that he's intentionally reading it wrong, and the other 4 are notoriously silent on the topic?

I was actually glad that the decision went this way, but it had nothing to do with how the second amendment is actually written, and everything to do with a conservative court having a 5-4 majority.

Rather than relying on a supreme court justice with a clear political agenda, why don't you study some American history...?

Where have I suggested you can't have a well regulated militia?

You are making it quite clear that you do not know what the phrase "well regulated" means in 18th/19th century English. It doesn't mean subjected to rules or laws - it means "normal" or "as one would expect."

You also clearly have some other, bizarre, interpretation where you separate the "well regulated militia" from "the people" - as if the writers were just lazy and couldn't be bothered to write two sentences rather than one.

The "people" referenced in the amendment ARE the constituents of the well regulated militia. It is saying "let's make this clear that when we say militia we mean a normal militia made up of civilians - NOT the troops of a standing army."

Again, pointing out that each of these amendments was written in such a way as to restrict the federal government from overreaching STATE governments.

This concept of modern America being a giant nation that happens to have geographic distinctions called 'states' is a relatively new thing. In 1791, states were basically little countries unto themselves that happened to share strong cultural similarities.

They who? The word militia is used because the states need to be assured that if there ever was a federal army the federal government would be bound by law to allow states (and smaller representative local governments) to maintain militias - in other words "if you ever have a standing army, we are still entitled to have our own militias - not that we don't trust you, it's just that we don't trust you that much.)

What on earth are you talking about now? Is this your odd segue to turn an academic discussion of the grammar of the second amendment into a political discussion of your personal views?

What? Who wants to scrap any amendments? I think you've made some assumptions about what was being discussed that was neither stated nor intended.

This has been a discussion about second amendment LANGUAGE usage. Not personal political views.

Pretty much where I am. Almost as if I divorce myself from the legal issue simply because I'm not female. But as to the moral issue - it's reprehensible unless it's a question of the mother's life versus the baby's.

I would rephrase that as the march on Concord being the British crossing the rubicon. The British marched to capture an arms cache that belonged to the colonial militia.

It is because the previous poster already did, I merely asked him what he thought the "well regulated militia" meant since he clearly left that inconvenient part out.

Given that you clearly do not know what the term "well regulated" meant in 1791, it's much easier to believe that you don't know what the phrase means - and telling people what the people who wrote the document *intended* is borderline delusional.

I'm looking at the language and purpose objectively, you're clearly looking at it subjectively; otherwise you wouldn't have projected whatever it is you *think* my interpretation is when I've not stated it at all - instead asking the other poster what they believe the phrase means when they clearly ignored it.

Just for the record I'm not anti-gun and I'm not gun-crazy either.

To save you the time - 'well regulated' was a turn of phrase that meant 'in the proper form of' - or for a terse and modern interpretation - "normal" and militias were in 1791 primarily organized at the state level as a unifying body.

So, what the document says (the amendment that was passed by Congress) is basically that the federal government shall not infringe upon the rights of local government militias (primarily targeting the states who were to ratify the amendment - albeit in grammatically different form.)

It's open to lots of interpretation - but that's how I believe it should be - and I hope it is what they intended. I don't think the early American government believed it could be specific and have these amendments stand the test of time (and they've been proven right over and over.)

Whatever the interpretation of the grammar, it's clear as day that it was meant that the amendment was intended to retain state powers in the face of a federal government gone amuck - not for anyone to have a gun. Militia had a very specific meaning at that time as well.

That being said, I enjoy breaking out my Mark 23 periodically and punching holes in targets. ;)

What, exactly, would *you* not allow between consenting adults?

Since you're apparently an expert in the colloquial interpretation of 18th century American English, could you please explain what this part of the 2nd amendment means?

"A well regulated Militia"

As a serious student of 18th century American History (not focusing particularly on the genesis of the Bill of Rights) it would read comparably to other documents of the 1780's and 90's (this example being 1791) as: "A well regulated militia, by which we mean an armed militia and not a standing army, shall always be allowed."

Your translation doesn't seem to mention a militia at all...

Wow - is that ever simplistic. That kind of thinking leads to foreign investment dropping to absolute zero, tariffs and sanctions from your biggest sources of tourism (which makes up something like 20% of the Greek economy) - that's a bright future for Greece you're advocating. If they play all their cards right, maybe in a hundred years or so they'll be back at the level of Portugal.