that every citizen has the right to own a gun. Within reason. Take those assault weapons out of the equation, period. Same with hand grenades, shoulder fired missiles and other nasty implements of death.

I believe the 2nd amendment speaks to a well regulated militia. As in National Guard. I don't believe it provides for every citizen to own unlimited guns.

I'm glad the Supremes are addressing this. Let's hope they actually come up with a definitive interpretation.

As for how it effects the rights of states to regulate or outright ban weapons, I think if you see the need to carry/own a gun and Missouri no longer allows that, you have the choice to stay out of Missouri. Since free speech is not potentially deadly, I don't think it can be compared.

I'm sure willing to be wrong about my take, since this is a sticky wicket, and I'm basically opposed to ANYone owning a gun.

I think since a state regulates the National Guard, it should also have jurisdiction over some of the more general practices of gun ownership.

The real issue is HOW do we promote responsible use and ownership of firearms and other potentially deadly tools.

...Vbron, 2020...

Vbron, Coultergeist, I appreciate your posts and respect your opinions but will have to disagree with both of you on some points.
Both of you allude to a practical necessity for owning a gun, and the idea that there is no need for assault rifles in hunting. In reading the second amendment, I see no language that points to the purpose of gun ownership being to protect a persons ability to hunt, or any other sporting activity. The purpose of the amendment was stated as being to provide security for a free state. The idea is that if the U.S. were invaded, the local citizens of an unorganized volunteer militia could repel such an invasion while waiting for the "regulars" to arrive with reinforcements. You have to remember that at the time there were only 13 states and the rest of the continent to the West was inhabited by the French, Spanish, Dutch, Natives and others, so the threat of invasion from outside forces was very real, as was the potential for political or other unrest causing internal strife as well. The military weapon of the day is precisely the weapon intended to be owned by citizens and protected by the amendment. As technology has advanced, so have firearms. In today's language the military weapon of choice has been branded with the scary term "Assault Rifle", and the sporting necessity argument, from wherever it came, is cited far too often as being a requirement for owning a firearm. The threat of invasion still exists today (albeit to a lesser extent), as does the threat of unrest and criminal activity from within. As such the need to provide security to either the state (my neighbors), or myself also still exists, and so should my right to protect myself, my family, my property with whichever style of firearm I have at my disposal.

Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

U.S. Constitution Article 1 section 8: The Congress shall have power To……. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions;....

Think selective service registration, the draft, etc. we are all militia members.

Also from Article 1 section 8: ….To provide for organizing, arming (I want congress to provide everyone a firearm) and disciplining (and train them to use it) 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;

Main Entry: discipline
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): dis·ci·plined; dis·ci·plin·ing
Date: 14th century
1: to punish or penalize for the sake of discipline
2: to train or develop by instruction and exercise especially in self-control.

is there ain't nothin' "well-regulated" about letting everybody have unlimited use of unlimited weapons. Where would you draw the line, Nampa?

I don't get the same interpretation as you from the dictionary. Signing up for the draft is a far stretch from the commitment, training and organization of the Guard, wouldn't you say? Which 1625 definition did the Founding Dads have in mind? The Supremes will decide for us, I guess.

As I understand it, Congress does provide the weapons (via the military budget) for the militia.

I'm certainly not a militia member. Nor would Congress call upon me "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions"....that sounds like the National Guard, once again. Does that mean I have no right to own a gun? What about a grenade? Maybe the only thing that stands between my family and an evil-doer is a great big bomb.

Again, it's a tricky subject.

you've already determined what exactly was meant by the 2nd Amendment.

I'm not so sure.

I guess if all you have to do is sign a paper and then have a day's training to be considered a well regulated militia, all that training the National Guard does is wasted taxpayer dollars.

Yes, I have determined what is my opinion of the Second Amendment.
Yes it also my opinion that requiring enlistment (into the National Guard) is not necessary to provide a well regulated citizen militia, though I do disagree that proper firearms training can be done in a day.
And No, I do not feel that the training done by National Guard units is a waste of taxpayers money, I just don't believe that ONLY the National Guard members are our nations militia, and that by extension are the only citizens who should be permitted to keep and bare arms.

Thanks for qualifying your remarks.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Yes Sir/Ma'am, it will be very interesting indeed. This is a story I will be following closely as it develops. Also makes me wonder if I should go out and purchase a couple (more) firearms, just in case a negative (from my viewpoint) decision is reached by the Justices, in the hopes that at least there would be a grandfathering clause.

ICBMs for everyone! How about nukes? Danged government wouldn't try and invade my house if they knew I had a nuke.

As DC isn't a state I don't see the Supreme Court as having any big impact on the states rights to regulate the sale or regulated use of firearms .
I have two gun safes and a concealed carry permit .
It isn't the physical "ability to use" a .45 that they teach in a conceal carry class ---- it's "when" to use that they hammer home .
The gun laws in Idaho are a total joke , even a convicted felon like VbroncoAfanB , can buy a gun out of The Statesman's classified section .
I own a couple of what the government calls assault weapons ------- I go out to the desert and hunt Pepsi cans or golf balls ------ because it's fun .

Reddog

VbroncoAfanB may not be a convicted felon , he might just be some one who is barely old enough to vote , that thinks he knows everything .

Reddog

If you got the money to buy it, property rights and the 2nd ought to allow you to own it.

For those who favor gun-control, consider yourself, YOU, in New Orleans after Katrina. The cops (killers that they be) are not always available for you to protect YOUR family and property. And if there is an angry mob outside my house, with no police around, you damn right I want a 30 round 'assault' weapon in my hands.

Also remember 9/11 was done without guns. I think we should have box-cutter control!

if the founding fathers foresaw automatic weapons that could do so much damage in so short of time. Y'all can claim to know what they meant with the 2nd ammendment, but I'm reasonably sure they didn't foresee semi-automatics when they were still using muskets.

Having said that, I'm not convinced gun control is the answer. Pipe bombs do a lot of damage, and you can't outlaw their parts.

i doubt that the founding fathers foresaw the development of guns to the point that it is at today. can any of us guess at what the weapons 200 years in the future from now will be like? i doubt it. in the time of the founding of this nation the weapons used to hunt food were the same ones used for defense. why cant the same be said now? i think that staring down the barrel of a 12 gauge shotgun or a 270 deer rifle would be quite enough to deter any looters or rapists breaking into my louisiana home, and i think that it would be equally effective in repelling an attack until the regulated militia, or backup arrives. the need of a M16 or AK47 in the home, in my opinion, is trivial at best. while they are admittidly fun to use for shooting rabbits in the desert, i don't see a practical use for them outside of warfare. basically, i don't suppport gun control as much as i do gun moderation. if it serves a purpose other than shooting up a city block then i don't have a problem with you owning one, as long as you meet all the requirements. (background check etc.) i also think that there should be further testing (possible psych analysis) prior to being allowed to purchase a weapon.
P.S. -i remember learning from the movie SHOOTER that a silencer can be made from common household items, so if your really concerned i could teach you how to put your coke bottle to good use.

well put idahoLT1. you have a few good points in there. for clarification, i mentioned the homemade silencer as a condolence for you in case idaho does put a ban on them.(silencers in general) you would still be able to shoot your foxes without causing a migrain for your chickens. i agree that the 2nd amendment is very important, and that it was placed as mumber 2 for a reason. i also will agree that it does not mention what types of weapons we can or cannot own. however, i'm pretty sure george washington didn't have a cannon and powder stashed away in his closet to foil a would be home invader. you mention the amount of rounds that a weapon can hold as part of your argument, so for fairness sake, a .22 caliber rifle can be purchased with a 25 round or even a 50 round clip. 3 of those puppies equal 150 rounds of deadly shot before you need to reload. you also said that an AK47 or AR15 are particularly effective in close combat. what kind of close combat are you picturing here? if the guy is any closer than the end of my shotgun barrel then i'm just gonna choke him out. correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe you are focusing on more of a mass catastrophe or take over, whereas i am looking more at a break-in, home robbery scene. so i guess it could depend on your outlook. if mexico or canada rises up and takes us over, i would love to have a fully automatic death sprayer in my closet and at my disposal. but the chances of that aren't likely. even in a scene like the aftermath of katrina, i think once you start pumping rounds through the old 10 gauge, people are gonna get the idea that you mean business. cowardly rapists don't stand up well to buckshot.
you also mentioned that illegal weapons are being bought up by criminals, while us law abiding citizens are left helpless. i guess that my whole point is that a gun is a gun is a gun. they all do pretty much the same thing. throwing a piece of metal at a tremendous velocity to inflict damage. really in my opinion what it comes down to is whoever shoots first is probably gonna win. regarless of if your shooting an antique bolt action or a top of the line fully automatic assault rifle. true or not?