2nd Amendment applies to non-1790's weapons

[Torie]

Since all of the discussion here has been on the second half of the amendment, I'd like to hear a cogent case for what the pro-gun people believe the first half of the amendment means. Is it germane to its meaning at all? Is it a conditional clause? Is it just a bunch of throat clearing (in which case, why?)?

I think this quote from Noah Webster captures what I think the authors had in mind as they wrote the first clause. Together the first two clauses were their justification for the right that followed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well Noah Webster was not involved in writing the Bill of Rights, so I don't know why we should defer to him on the underlying policy, more than anyone else. If that is the underlying policy, that the people must have arms that are more than a match for the regular military, then the people at this juncture need "arms" like jets, and tanks, and maybe nukes for all I know, and certainly need rapid fire weapons.

So perhaps it might be wise and prudent to seek a different spin on all of this, no?

[Torie]

So the citizens have the right to have the same munitions as the US army does, Muon2?

[Torie]

So the citizens have the right to have the same munitions as the US army does, Muon2?

That's not the way I read the passages from that time. I see those American writers describing a militia of the people in the same way I see Mao's strategy for his early army, one consisting of large numbers of lightly armed irregulars that could deflect and if necessary bring to a halt the army of a central government.

But lightly armed irregulars could not defeat today's army, as was the case then. So if the rational is the ability to defeat, then the type of arms is a moving target, akin to what is deemed "cruel and unusual."