“For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the
Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and
audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides
a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser.”

KLEINFELD, Dissent from denial of rehearing en banc Nordyke v. King,

Our moral fabric has deteriorated to a state of suspicion and mis-trust even amongst neighbors. The population has reached saturation densities in most urban areas, and local involvement has largely dropped off to less than 1% of the civil composition.

I own magazine fed, semi-automatic rifles, and they exsist purely and entirely to defend my home, my family and my nation. This is true of the majority of military pattern weapons, and their owners.

The reality is that the police have no legal obligation to assist you in ANY situation. They are a public service, and as such your physical well-being is your own responsibility. As many found out in the 1992 LA Riots, and the more recent events in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, taking up arms to defend ones life and family is not a far-fetched “Mad Max” fantasy of bunker-dwelling right wing extremists.

It is a very real threat. Consider the population of your nearest metropolitan city, and then research the number of police assigned to the city’s department.

Seattle for example:
Residents: 600,000+/-
Police Officers: 1300+/-

History has poised this question in a multitude of ways, but ultimately it is your responsibility to ask yourself as a citizen: “In a situation where my life is at stake, do I want to bet on assistance?”

Buy a military pattern weapon, and learn to use it. There is a reason the Swiss have not been invaded.

“In drafting the Constitutional Second Amendment the Founding Fathers had no idea about today’s modern automatic…weapons” : by Kenneth John Bemis on October 5, 2007 @ 2:05 pm.

The same argument could apply as well to the First Amendment with the unseen developments of film, video, pornography, and the Internet. If technological advancements can render a “fundamental right” obsolete, then just what is the real issue here? Rights or technology? Or is clouding the rights issue with a technology argument an honest strategy regarding “rights”? I think not. This ploy has a whiff of “separate but equal” to it. At this time in our history the Second Amendment issue is not about maximum technology, but about the minimum standards of the fundamental right of personal and national defense. Or “Minimum Code” in the parlance of architecture. Just what is the minimum “arm” (weapon) that a person can “bear” (carry) and not infringe upon the rights of others to be able to “bear” similar “arms”? The “nuclear weapons” argument is a red herring and an emotional appeal to the ignorant. The issue before the court is both one of intent and degree. Is the Second Amendment an individual right, as are all other rights, enumerated or not, in the Bill of Rights? If it is then, a fundamental right, what are the “minimums”? Archaic or modern. If “archaic” then is this a form of infringement? Would a return to the printing press be constitutional? If “modern” to the point of fully automatic weapons, is this beyond “original intent”? It is time for the Supreme Court to define the 2nd. Amendment as an individual right without the Orwellian, “collective rights” oxymoron, and to decide upon the “minimums”. In deference to the amendments “militia clause”, the minimums would be what the common, squad level, foot soldier had in WWII. That is a SEMI-automatic long gun of 7 shots such as the .30-’06 M-1 rifle , a pump or double barrel shotgun, a 6-shot, SEMI-automatic side arm such as the 1911 .45 Colt, and/or 6 shot S&W .38sp. revolver. These are the minimums, not the maximums, for those who’s right to “keep and bear arms” should be protected. Beyond that, there is room for the addition or proscription of certain equipment in the learned discussions of Congress or state legislatures. America is too important to consider any less.

As to the Founding Fathers’ intent, again, facts speak louder than emotional appeal or personal preference. Even a slightly educated analysis of the intent of the Second Amendment would show that it was clearly included so that the individual citizens of the Republic could defend the rest of their rights against any possible future tyranny by their own government, imposed through the use of military force (including the more modern advent of police forces). That being the case, they would clearly expect that the MOST protected arms would be those of the type used primarily by individual infantry soldiers in a contemporary military unit, and hence useful for militia service (the test for protection of an arm under [I]Miller[/I]), were the need of their service ever to arise. While the concept of an armed populace, capable and willing to protect their liberty from both internal and external threat, may be contrary to the view of the nation you and many others would like the US to be, it was the very core of what the Founding Fathers’ intended, and is, whether you like it or not, the nature of the nation they set up.

None of it. What’s at issue is “the right of the people to keep and bear”, and what exactly that means.

If the city does not wish to “stand by while its citizens die,” it has many opportunities to act without infringing upon the Bill of Rights. “[U]ntil issues like onerous requirements for officers to appear in court, outmoded technology, counterproductive work rules and lax attitudes are fixed, residents won’t see dramatic change.” Shuffling the Force, WASHINGTON POST, Sept. 29, 2007, at A18.

In the meantime, people need not stand by and
die while waiting for Petitioners to provide a safe city in which to live. The Second Amendment guarantees to citizens something that Petitioners have expressly and consistently disclaimed any legal obligation to provide: an effective means of preserving their lives.