Dug wrote in :

HeyBub wrote:

#2: No matter how much you try to equate guns and cars, the
fundamental fact remains that ownership of guns is protected
by the Constitution

In the context of the owner being part of a citizen's militia, in the
context of having access to said gun (musket) during times of civil
defence against an foreign invader.


WRONG. there's NO language in the 2nd that requires one to be in a militia
to have the RKBA. NONE whatsoever.
ALL the 2nd says about militias is that they are "necessary to a free
state",nothing more.

It CLEARLY states the "right of the PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms,not "of a
militia".

semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's
modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms
under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar
to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault
rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a
militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd
Amendment had to be arms a militia would use. AR-15's,M-16's and AK-47s
would be ordinary militia arms,and "hi-capacity magazines" also would be
protected.


nice try to prevent replies,by directing followups to alt.bull****;
that proves you're a troll. the Killfile for you.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com