11-09-2018, 11:39 PM
(11-09-2018, 02:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Presser still attaches the right to bear arms to the condition of militia membership. It wasn't until Heller that the individual right to bear arms, independent of an organized militia, was recognized as a right. That case was just a decade ago, this year.
True, but you omit a fairly relevent part of the decision;
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States
So, yes, you are technically correct, it was a condition of militia membership. However, all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the militia, hence all citizens capable of bearing arms are constitutionally entitled to do so per this decision.
Quote:I don't think anyone needs one, but it doesn't mean I think they should be barred from owning one. Hardly an extremist view when the data would support my position based on the number of shots fired in the vast majority of civilian defensive situations or the number of rounds required for hunting.
Fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I'm of the opinion that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Quote:It can make Fox look like CNN.
I'll give it a look and give you my honest opinion.
