The history of 2nd amendment decisions and the existing gun control laws make me wonder.

"A well existing militia..." has been interpreted as indicating that the amendment covers weapons of a military nature (Miller v. US for example), and yet we have the California gun ban on 50 caliber rifles, on the grounds - no less - that they're military-type weapons.

As with many other things, the judicial decisions made on the issue of gun control seem to be best explained by the theory of judicial cyncism.

I think you mean "well REGULATED militia" there, Nate.

> I think you mean "well REGULATED militia" there, Nate.

Yeah, can't edit here to fix that...at least it's Friday. The rest is still true.

I agree with Nate. I believe the founders intended for we the people to maintain the ability to overthrow our government when they got out of control. That being said, they also didn't want a standing army or US military bases spread all over the world.

If Jefferson could see us now...

The standards for a "well regulated militia" in the context of 18th century, flintlocks has little relevance to the insanity of permitting nuts like this guy to get their hands on an assault rifle.

I understand that you, Brad, are apolitical, but the reference to Louie (Rep. Louie Gohmert, the idiot Republican Congressman from Texas) is right on! Congrats.

Brad, I like that. "Well regulated." Never really read it like that before. Very nice.

For those folks who believe the 2nd amendment protects their right to buy an assualt rifle and 6,000 rounds of ammo, I say, where's my grenade launcher?

And if such weapons are protected, then switchblades and brass knuckles should be legal, too. Think about the irony of making brass knuckles and switchblades illegal, while high-powered assault weapons are perfectly fine.

>> I say, where's my grenade launcher?

Last I checked, you could buy and own them. Firing grenades can get you in trouble.