[TheForge] OT, but I Just have to ask...

[Andrew Vida]

Bruce, I don't want to start an OT war here, but you are as wrong as it 
gets, and if you do a little research into Supreme Court decisions you 
will find that they have CONSISTENTLY found that the second amendment 
covers ALL weapons suitable to military purposes.  Their decision in US 
v. Miller firmly and unequivocally sustained that we as individual 
citizens are guaranteed the right to bear ANY weapon appropriate to 
military use.  Miller saw prison because it was found that a sawed off 
shotgun was considered not to be a suitable militia weapon.

There are many other cases where SCOTUS has reaffirmed that the language 
of the second amendment clearly guarantees the individual RKBA.  This is 
an old and trite argument in the gun control circles.  Pro gun control 
people have not, to date, been able to make a single credible argument 
against individual rights to keep and bear arms.  There's a lot of 
material on this topic.  A web search will inundate you with sources.

Bruce Freeman wrote:
> Or, technically no.  
> 
> Since the Constitution became the law of the land in 1789 (?), ONLY
> arms that existed then would apply.  Flintlock and matchlock
> muzzle-loaders.  Maybe a cannon drawn by horses.  Bows, crossbows, no
> composite materials or compound actions...
> 
> Two can play the semantics game.

	If you're going to play the "semantics game", as you pu tit, you'd 
better do your homework, because the semantics are against your 
interpretation; unless, of course you are one to play Clintonesque 
versions such as "when does 'is' mean 'is'", which is of course 
disingenuous in the extreme.

If you want to have this out, may I suggest we go have some coffee and 
discuss it?

	0-Andy