Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
This one is specifically for Jsarno, given his reliance on his constitutional right to own a gun:
In the case I referenced earlier, assume the Supreme Court rules that: 1) the modern incarnation of a "well-regulated militia" constitutes the National Guard and that, as a result: 1) only off-duty, private citizens of the National Guard are permitted to keep guns; AND 2) only the guns retained must be necessary for their duties as part of the National Guard.
Anticipating one of your standard responses: Yes. This is a hypothetical and an unlikely one at that. However, I ask b/c, given your past assertion that the Constitution must be respected, I am curious to see if you would continue to hold that belief if the body of government charged with interpreting the Constitution determined you were not entitled to have a gun.
Less hypothetical - if the ruling in Heller in any way allows for the restriction of personal ownership of guns, will you comply with the restrictions?
|
I know that this was for JSARNO, but I could not resist. This is not always feesable.
1. Would you trust a 21 year old man with only 3 years experience with weaponry vs. a 38 year old retiree with 20 years because the 18 year old is in the guard and the retiree is done with the military alltogether.
2. The weapons used by the National Guard are issued to them and are held at a centralized arms room. If for some reason thase arms rooms were seized by the hypothetical enemy, then what?
I will tell you what; we are in trouble because in your world we either dont have weapons, or we have less experience backing them.