But the Supreme Court said that what can't be infringed is the right of individuals, the People, i.e. me and you, to keep arms. Its beside the point whether or not a criteria for a militia is filled by the police.
Curiously, what the Supreme Court has said is that states have the right to regulate firearms and weapons.
There's nothing curious about that because nobody is advocating a lack of regulation nor claiming that there is no regulation. What's curious is why you even bring that up.
Stay on point here... You're trying to say that having the police and national guard fullfills the requirements of the militia so taking away the citizens' guns wouldn't violate the amendment. But you're wrong because the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, i.e. it is an individual right that we all have.
Interestingly, your opinion cannot alter reality.
Arrogantly, you say that while acting like you think that yours can:
Certainly the regulation of weapons similar to what is in Canada and England is justified on this basis.
A fine opinion, but like mine, it cannot alter reality.
The fact is that this can be done without violating the second amendment stipulation that militias can be formed by existing avenues,
Bafflingly, you're still ignoring the Supremem Court ruling. Fortunately, it doesn't matter if militias would otherwise still be formed, the right is that of the individual people.
You want to carry or operate a gun used to fight crime, then join a police force and get trained in fighting crime.
You want to carry or operate a gun used to fight a war, then join a National Guard unit and get trained in fighting a war.
We want to have the capability of defending ourselves and our families, protect our chickens from coyotes, protect out vegetables from rabbits, hunt food, entertain our favorite hobby, and enjoy some recreational shooting.
The reduction in the amount of violent assaults resulting in death AND the reduction in the number of accidents resulting in maiming or death IS a rational reason for the regulation of weapons.
How many deaths would be prevented? What are the adverse side-effects of the regulation?
But regardless, weapons are already regulated.
ABE:
With the only significant difference between the US, Canada and England being the gun regulations, the significantly higher rate of murder by firearms is unequivocally correlated with the possession of firearms in the US and the relatively lax regulations in the US compared to England and Canada.
quote:
Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
Assuming the population of the U.S. is 307 million people, 0.03 deaths per 1000 people comes out to 9210 deaths from murder by firearm.
9210...
From the
CDC, I found this info:
quote:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 631,636
Cancer: 559,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
Diabetes: 72,449
Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
Septicemia: 34,234
The death prevention from firearm regulation like that of UK/Canada is negligible.
Its just too insignificant to be the main reason for taking away people's guns.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2