This is about as vague as you can get, and possibly a bit silly.
In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.'' The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.'' Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time 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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''
Did you actually read this? It implies that the reason for registering (not making illegal) sawed off shotguns is that it is not the sort of weapon that a citizen would use to defend the country at need. In other words, it's not a normal military weapon.
What this means to me is that by this definition, everyone should have a right to "normal" military weapons, i.e. AK-47s, Uzis, M-16s, etc.
This is more legal fog, and answers nothing. I know what the Constitution intended, and I know what moral reasons there are for citizens being armed.
Off Topic » in reply to Counterpoint
Re: Counterpoint
