The Gun Blogs

I can't leave these two paragraphs alone just yet, I just wanted to make the point below first, then address the issues. Once again, I'm talking about Supremes take on 2nd Amendment - Yawn, and the usual stupid arguments.

Oh, and about relevance...fact is, the 2nd Amendment was drafted when slow loading, firing (maybe one shot a minute) and inaccurate muskets (5' tall, ramrod for loading, bullet separate from charge) were the sole firearms available to private citizens, as opposed to today's semiautomatic handguns and assault rifles, with their rapid fire and high-capacity ammunition magazines (32 bullets fired in less than 15 seconds, for instance), as well as massively destructive .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles. Does any but a pro-gun extremist believe that the Founders would countenance unfettered access by private citizens to such destructive firepower?

What you fail to realize, Bryan, is that those muskets you refer to were cutting-edge technology at the time. Do you really want to go down this road? I'd be happy to, myself.

That brings me back to 1939, when the Supremes ruled on the 2nd Amendment. They made it patently clear that it was inextricably concerned with that "Well regulated Militia..." of yore - in today's world, the National Guard. In the Supremes' words: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use (of a firearm)...has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." So, if it ain't for the National Guard, you have no right to it. A privilege, maybe, depending upon the local, state and federal laws and regulations in place. But a right, no. Sorry, guys.

Repeat after me: "The National Guard is not the militia." Never has been, never will be. The closest thing to an organized militia these days could be the state guard, but even that's up for debate.

The militia was originally defined as every able-bodied man between 14 and 45. But, seeing as 50 is the new 30, I guess we could bump that age up to 65 or so. Whatever retirement age is, I think, would be a good cutoff. Remember, a militia is a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. National Guard are professional soldiers, every last one. I dare ya to tell one otherwise.

At any rate, you are wrong again. You state your (erroneous) opinion as fact, and expect us to just nod our heads and agree. For that, I call bullshit on your latest article.