DC Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

In my opinion, it establishes both an individual and a public right.

Because a militia is essentially under the control and regulation of the government, to restrict firearms to militias only is dangerous because at anytime, the government could in effect strip the militia of its armaments.

Therefore, individuals are allowed to own firearms as well so the government doesn't become in effect the sole issuer of firearms.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

The notion that the citizenry need firearms to resist the government in its current form is dangerous because then we inevitably get situations like Waco.

Of course, you know the British considered the Colonist's rebellion to be on the same level as Waco.

You're one of the types that claim that the government is infringing on our liberties way too much (Patriot Act, etc.) but at the same time, don't believe individuals have the right to bear arms in order to resist such a government. You believe that the right rests with the militia, which is inherently controlled and armed by the government, which makes the entire idea that the citizenry can resist an oppressive government pointless because the government has ultimate control over the means of resistance.

He who has the guns runs shit. You are in effect saying that the government should control who has access to weapons and when.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Although it is unconstitutional for the government to ban firearms completely, it is completely to their discretion which firearms they deem necessarhy in this day.

Based on what admendment or article?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.