I understand much of our law originates from England BUT this isn't England and whether or not the King could mandate who gets what etc.. it isn't the same here. We have an individual right to own and bear guns and it simply can't be taken away. Your last post was about Congress regulating the militia, but what exactly is the militia? IF it is considered the whole population capable of bearing arms, which it is according to the men who wrote and ratified the 2nd, then the same rules should apply to everyone. As an example, a civilian cop shouldn't be stationed on Wall St with an AR and body armor while every other lawful civilian in the city can't own or carry anything. If a certain amount of training or permit was required to purchase and/or carry certain firearms, I would personally be ok with that.. but they need to be accessible imo.
NBC Poll: Public Blames Parents, Hollywood Over Guns for Violence http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/po.../2013/01/18/id/472068?s=al&promo_code=121B0-1 Rasmussen: 65% See Gun Rights as Protection Against Tyranny http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gun.../2013/01/18/id/472061?s=al&promo_code=121B0-1
You can't have it both ways, which is kind of what you're trying to do. Not that I blame you, everyone is when it comes to this issue. IF the entire population is the militia, AND the militia is a military organization, THEN the right to regulate what can and can't be carried by that same militia is subject to regulation by Congress. The 2nd says they can't just disarm you. It DOESN'T say they can't regulate what arms you have. Your opinion that civilians should have the right to arms that = police armament is just an opinion. It's not Constitutional law. Anyway, that's not really what I or a lot of people are trying to get at. We'd be satisfied merely with having to have a license to carry arms.
By the way, the idea that the entire population is the militia came from England. They actually did that, and mandated that everyone had to have some minimum armament. That idea is what was incorporated into the 2nd Amendment.
I'm not trying to have it both ways, some of what I said is opinion and I labeled it as such. However gun control is definitely a grey-area and my opinion is based on the intent of the 2nd according to those who included it in our Constitution. Since the intent was that all civilians be armed and able to defend themselves, the weapons available have to be capable to that end. One of those threats which needs to be guarded against is an oppressive govt (in their own words).. so is it not reasonable that the people are allowed to be armed equally to civilian govt? There has to be some balance, otherwise why couldn't Congress just ban everything except single shot pistols, in which case the general pop will be effectively disarmed? Gun control didn't even really exist until the 1930's National Firearms Act. And it seems unbelievable, that originally these NFA weapons were registered and taxed, then when the SC ruled part of the Act Unconstitutional and thus unenforceable, Congress re-wrote the act. In the revision they allowed only govt officials to register weapons and wouldn't accept the tax from ordinary civilians! that is already over-regulation and it doesn't even seem legal. These weapons aren't 'banned', yet most lawful citizens are prevented from owning them. Also, it is my understanding (I'm sure others know better than I do), that outside of States with Constitutional Carry laws, a permit is already required to carry a gun. I disagree with your idea that to carry should require a license. It is a right to carry, same as it is to own a gun. How do you feel about certain cities like Chicago where civilians are outright banned from carrying a gun, does that type of law seem Constitutional to you?
I'm aware, but the ideas are not the same. One was a mandate made by a king, and can be taken away.. the other is a birthright which cannot.