[Sonart]

.

Quote by: TRIGGER According to the founding fathers in the federalist papers.

Which Federalist paper would that be... Madison's No. 46 where he argues that state militias would be more than adequate to resist a federal standing army? Maybe, in 1788. Do you actually think an armed insurrection could succeed against todays U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines?

Interestingly enough, in that same paper, Madison dramatically makes the exact WRONG prediction regarding what would follow a mere 4 score years later... the Civil War, where it became clear that the Federal government and their standing federal military would not allow armed insurrections, even by states, to succeed.

Besides, the Federalist Papers have no standing in law; the resulting Constitution does, and the Constitution makes the status of the Militias quite clear...

Article I Section 8: -- Congress shall have the power...

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II Section 2: -- The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Quote by: TRIGGER They (the founding fathers) defined...

They (the founding fathers) also declared slavery to be perfectly acceptable and denied equal rights to women, making the promises of equaltiy in the Declaration of Independence a lie.

So it seems the founding fathers were neither all wise or all knowing, since the Constitution has been revisited a number of times as our society has evolved.

Fortunately, no such amending was required for the Second Amendment, since it's very language and the obsolescence of the militia has made it meaningless, as determined by the Constitutional arbitors of what is and isn't constitutional... Article III, Section 1: -- "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Quote by: TRIGGER A claymore, anti-tank mine, or a daisy-cutter are basically just explosives that can be easily improvised. Example? Timothy McVeigh, Unabomber, suicide bomber, come to mind. A TOW missile? No. Why? It would be considered sensitive technology. Anything that a solder can and or would carry in to battle? Yes.

That's nice, but it didn't answer my question, did it? What would be considered the responsible use of such weapons by a private citizen?


.