A well-regulated militia is very different than the National Guard. The National Guard provides weapons to an individual who enlisted in the guard. The Guard is paid service. The National Guard is integrated into a national command structure. The National Guard does not elect its officers. A militia generally requires the individual to bring their own weapon. It is only raised in time of crisis and not available in peacetime. It is unpaid (generally), elects its own officers, and is only responsible to the state. Traditional State Militias in the U.S. generally did not go beyond the Civil War.
You mean like how handguns in Chicago were "made illegal" long ago? How'd that work out for Chicago? Speaking of morons.
Yes, you can legally own a machine gun, and they still make new ones. It would probably help if you went out and actually did research on this subject before spouting off. Then you could debate like someone who understood what the fuck they were talking about.
Try reading. I said "easily". In addition, the larger point, which has gone straight through your head unimpeded by brain material, that there are currently strong restrictions on what firearms citizens can own. It just a matter of another law to ban handguns.
And speaking of morons....you still can't comprehend why piecemeal local laws don't prevent interstate smuggling. How many more times are we going to hear this same lame argument from the gun nuts?
Conservative Jihadists. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-parenthood_5658a87be4b079b2818a6d86?6kbdfgvi
"they can't make new ones for sale." And it's my brain that's supposedly impeded. As for "another law to ban handguns", many municipalities have had those laws and they ended up being the most deadly places to live. Liberal municipalities, incidentally. Why? Because, and I get that you're too fucking dumb to grasp this concept but I'll restate anyway - you might get it on the 1 millionth try, if someone wants to commit murder, they don't care about your stupid "gun is illegal" misdemeanor.
Wow, what a close-minded interpretation. Local laws aren't ineffective because they are local only. After all, if it's the law that is being ignored, it's because the law is ineffective. They don't work because banning guns doesn't get rid of guns. If the law worked, people wouldn't have guns and commit crimes in those localities because they'd be afraid of breaking the law. The law doesn't say "you can't own hand guns unless you get them from somewhere else." It simply says "the possession and ownership of handguns is illegal". Period. Only confiscation gets rid of guns, and you have no idea how to confiscate guns from the group of people largely responsible for crimes - people with illegal guns! Probably about as many times as jackasses supporting gun laws spout the stupid law argument.