If handguns have no military value, why do so many militaries use them? They must be stupid, I guess. Daly should clearly start a business as a military consultant, since he could save them a lot of money that they currently waste buying handguns and ammunition for them.
I agree with this and imperialism's POV. If Mike only wants guns with "military value" to beavailable and thinks handguns have none, gimme my MP5 andM4 Carbine and you can have my P95. I think a lot of hunters will thank Mike when they have to hunt with AKs and ARs instead of their trusty bolt-actions. Oh, wait; get a black synthetic stock and bipod and that bolt-action has military value. And when the police start walking around with M16s because handguns' only purpose is to allow criminals to kill, I think we'll all be thanking Mike.
"No military value?" Whythen does every soldier in the U.S. Army wear a handgun on their hip, and has done so since WWI? In fact, the gun used for all but the last 15 years or so was a .45ACP1911 (the same caliber, if not the same gun, used to kill the officer).
The 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of the Federal government to maintain the National Guard. Wait, the Federal Government maintains the State guard forces? Yes, the States may administer their use, but you think Texas could maintain its NG and ANG on a10.7 billion dollar budget? It costs more than the entire expenditure of the Statejust to maintain the ANG for a year.They get Federal money to do so and could not do so without it. The Act that established the National Guard was at the federal level, and the Federal government's needs pre-empt the States';it's a Federal construct. It therefore cannot be the "militia" the Bill of Rights was talking about because the BOR is a document that places limitations on the Federal government for the benefit of the States and the People. Why would the BoR contain one Amendment out of Ten that grants a power the Federal government already had in the original Constitution to create and maintain the armed forces?
A militia, as protected by the Second Amendment,is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "a military force raised from the civilian population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". Wikipedia defines italternately as "The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms." "Well-regulated" would translate into today's parlance as "well-equipped". Therefore, "a well-regulated militia" translates as "the able-bodied citizenry, equipped with capable firearms and available to fight". Minutemen. The right to keep and bear arms ensures the availability of such a militia, whose usefulness was proven in the Revolutionary War, and thus "a well-regulated militia" and "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" IS THE SAME THING. The importance of such a force is no less useful today than200 years ago; if Venezuela invaded from the Gulf of Mexico tomorrow, with the Army AND National Guard largely deployed overseas, what wouldthe President say? "Get your guns out and protect your homes and communities by any means available!"