This discussion hasn't much to do with the purpose of the thread, so I would assume John may move it, but where I am coming from...Xeraphim1 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:07 pmThe discussion on rational limitations on firearms took place a long time ago. What you're discussing is neither rational nor reasonable. I encourage you to do more research into the issue rather than relying on false talking points.
At the end of the Reconstruction, the Jim Crow Supreme Court in the process of removing federal rights from blacks neutralized much of the Bill of Rights. Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP restored most of it in the mid 20th century, but left the 2nd Amendment pretty much alone. The academics came up with the 'standard model' of what the 2nd Amendment should say, and the NRA and various activists are in the process of making it so. I am pretty much in agreement with the standard model. (Well, nobody seems willing to admit that nukes are an arm too. Nobody has filed a court case on that particular point yet.) Thus, I am coming from things from a slightly different angle than most here.
But the Democrats are pretty much riding on a century of Jim Crow precedent with its accent on the militia clause, while the Republicans are going with at least some of the academic standard model. It is just that congress does have the power to regulate the militia, including defining who is in the militia. If the Democrats switched from counting on the defunct Jim Crow era precedents to regulating the heck out of the militia they might be able to force a reasonable dialogue.
So I'm up on the academics and the law, but am taking a different slant than most here. And you are correct that the laws as written are not rational nor reasonable given modern weapons. Thus, both sides are sort of looking away from what the law says.