Why the 2nd Amendment may no longer be revelent to the Federal Government

[BjornF16]

The M4 carbine (the musket of our day) may not be available to the vast majority of private citizens, but it should be. That would be directly within the intent of the second amendment. The same as M9's, M14's, M1's, M1 carbines, M2 carbines, SAW's, M60's, 870's, 590's, etc., etc., etc... all either ARE or SHOULD be. The NFA was a travesty, and should have never happened. It needs abolished. The Federal .gov's denying us of our inalienable rights does not make them less relevant. It makes the .gov despotic.

The DOD does provide training to it's members, but it does not assist "the people" as a whole in acquiring that competency. Further evidence of our being denied the chance by the government. They could equip and train us like the Swiss, or simply stop infringing on our rights.

The whole story of U.S. vs. Miller makes my head nearly explode every time I even think about it. That was one of the biggest shams ever pulled on "the people". The whole story reads like very bad fiction, and it's extremely hard to believe it even did happen. Those bastards should have been held directly accountable for the stunt they pulled off.

That the entire NFA doesn't comprise an unconstitutional infringement is a farce on it's very face, and that BS needs corrected.

Lest people think I'm unreasonable and insisting on a 2nd Amnd. right to nuclear warheads, I would be amenable to possible NFA type restrictions on crew served weapons and above, as they do not normally comprise "individual" weapons. They might be argued as unsuitable for individual militia member (whether organized or not) usage on those grounds. It might be suitable for them to be treated differently. Even then I wonder though. I seriously doubt George Washington would have taken issue with my possessing a 6 pounder.... If anything, that's where the debate should lie in reference to protected arms possession. Should "Variable" have a "right" possess an 81mm mortar? A 155mm howitzer? I'd vote for allowing it (LOL), but I'm not sure it'd be a "right". That's where our debate should be.

Look how far they've pushed the "Overton Window" on us.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

It's sickening that they've been allowed to get away with it, and now they are trying to push it even farther.

They got away with NFA of 1934 because it didn't prohibit anything, it just "taxed" it. Much like ObamaCare mandate was upheld as a "tax".

What IS a travesty is the prohibitions on owning automatics that was snuck into the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 in the middle of the night, via a "voice vote" that didn't truly pass but was rammed through via the "opinion of the chair".

We saw this absurdity occur at the Democrat National Convention when they rammed through a change in platform language that clearly did not carry the voice vote, but was approved anyways via the "opinion of the chair" after the third vote.

I saw it again just a week ago in the US House of Representatives with Republicans in control...the "opinion of the chair" was once again in clear contrast to the voice vote.

Disgusting...

Anyways, I agree with Variable that we SHOULD be allowed to own these arms without interference from the government...IF the light infantry or local law enforcement can have a particular weapon, then so should we!