Re: The Second Amendment---Broken down
old thread but WTH, might as well throw this out there.
Check out US v Miller, Printz v US, and Lewis v US.
In a nutshell: The 2nd Amendment technically doesn't protect any weapon that is not in "common usage in modern warfare." Miller was found guilty of violating the national firearms act (the merits of which can be debated in another discussion) with a short-barreled shotgun not because it was considered too dangerous, but because it was NOT a weapon of modern warfare. In reality, it was, the court just didn't realize that. The point is, the court decided that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of citizens to possess the very "assault" weapons that so many people are opposed to.
Secondly (and I can't remember the case, sorry. I'm too lazy to look it up.) in order to decide on what "well regulated militia" meant, the court actually went back to dictionaries from the time the amendment was written to decide what the writers meant. The court found that (as someone above me mentioned) any male of fighting age was deemed to be part of the militia. There was no requirement for formal drilling of any kind; just to be a male and be 18-45 or so.
Just thought I'd throw that out there in case some people weren't already aware. Our Supreme Court actually seems to be holding the line on the 2nd Amendment, for now. When Obozo appoints his two new justices I'm sure that'll change.