Try to make the most out of the next 14 days.

Schumer, Sanders, & company have convinced me that they're ready to take a page out of McConnell's book & obstruct the **** out of the GOP until they can regain power, so I'm not as worried as I was on election night. I like what I'm hearing from the "left" & am looking forward to seeing them not huddling in the corner like a bunch of pussies for once, even if it is a bit late. If the ethics oversight fiasco that recently occurred doesn't convince the GOP that they can't go forward with their regressive agenda, then nothing will, & we'll cock-punt those *******s out of there in two years.

^^^ which is why it's good to have at least one of house, senate, white house controlled by a different party.

First, let me remind you that my comment, , was specifically referring to comprehending the plain language of the constitution. I further clarified that,

Now, my point in which you certainly meet the criteria of is



And especially that last statement. They want to defeat it so badly that they pretend there's some nuance to debate.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Seems crystal clear. Certainly arms and keeping and bearing them isn't vague. So what's vague, the first part? Do you even know the purpose of the Bill of Rights? That it was a promise to the states that upon ratification of the constitution, their concerns of granting far too much authority to a national government would be addressed? Imagine, the federal government actually made good on its promise and the house sent a couple dozen to the senate that through debate and revision became twelve carefully written amendments that were submitted to the states with ten ratified quickly one some two hundred years later and one technically still before the states.

So if it's the first part of the second amendment, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, that's somehow vague, how? And if context and intent are important, what has changed that makes that portion of the second amendment no longer relevant? Nothing. Well, that's probably not true. It's probably worse now making it even more relevant.

Okay, setting all of that aside, what is our practical recourse for constitutionally settling this argument? The supreme court, right? Does it bother you at all that five justices swaying either way can define this issue for the entire country how they see fit never being explicitly granted the power to do so in the constitution? I've heard a persuasive argument that their power to do so is implied and not explicit and therefore in case such as this so be wielded with discretion but again, if they weren't granted the power explicitly might we have to consider the context and intent of the judicial clause creating them? Hamilton argued that the role of the court was not so much to determine the meaning of the constitution but rather to set aside laws determined to be unconstitutional. On the face that might sound almost the same but I think the spirit of that is to interpret the constitution with the greatest amount of latitude and set aside those laws that infringe upon that. In the case of the second amendment I see no fair interpretation that cannot conclude that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I understand why you think this and it does kind of sound good that they'd have to compromise to get things done or they'd get nothing done but in reality they just get the worst kind of compromises through. What I think would be kind of neat is if the founders had came up with some way that states could have had their interests represented in government like maybe, I don't know, one house could be elected by the people and maybe another could be appointed by the states.

I think arguments in favor of gun laws that rely on fetishizing our founding fathers are just as wanting as you're claiming Mentat's being.

If your conditions for a thing being a good idea are that people 100s of years ago have timeless judgement, you're not really convincing me otherwise.

Plus, I like firearms, AND I somehow simultaneously think language referring to individuals owning firearms and assembling in militias might not be a comprehensive or nuanced enough statement to base all arguments in favor of firearms for the rest of US existence.

Sorry for the double post. Why can't we delete posts.



That's not the line.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you cannot understand why someone might infer that the first part is the action that ensures the second part is maintained, you're either being obtuse or you're dumb.

Perhaps you should read the entire post next time. I mean, seriously, your criticism is answered in the very next paragraph.

And to reply to your other post I really can't stand how so many people think a bunch of rich white guys just got together and wrote the best thing they could for them. Even though we're the longest standing constitutional republic, we're a pretty brief period of recorded history. Those scholars pulled from thousands of years of philosophy and government to devise our founding document. And so if some portion is outdated or obsolete today just amend it rather than disparage the founders or the document. They were wise enough to provide the process.

I had read it. I am responding to your assertion that the ONLY way someone could consider that wording vague is if they wanted to take-r-gunz. I am saying I like being able to own firearms, might have different beliefs on their availability, and because I took 11th grade English, I can understand why that sentence is disputable beyond boogieman logic about people who don't share my political opinions.

I mean, personally just from a historical and reading comprehension level, I think they're talking a little bit more about taking arms against governments. For me it's neither here nor there as to whether firearms should be banned, limited, or available to citizens as an inalienable right or not. I think the true intention of the article and its inclusion is more important than the insecurity of gun owners anyway.

Welcome back, by the way.

Hi.

So can you please renig on that point, or legitimately admit that you cannot in any way consider that the first part of the sentence is satisfying the second part? I am making like a specific point here. Not because I wanna take ur guns, and I am not trying to get you to AGREE with that interpretation (although I suspect it's the true one), just that a person could read the sentence and infer that? I mean, it's not even grammatically sound to begin with, so that right there debunks your "THE ONLY REASON THIS COULD BE VAGUE IS LIB-R-ALLS" argument.

Edit: Because I can totally see how it's read the opposite way, too! I can see why the sentence lends itself to interpretation both ways! Amazingly! I understand declarative statements and that double meanings are the stuff of language! I can debate politics beyond rote semantics and idealistic hero worship!

Sure, we can go back and debate the meaning, but what's the point? The supreme court made the decision. Are we going to go back and revisit abortion? Other civil rights? Everything the supreme court has ever decided? That will be fun. (I don't want to spend any time debating any of that so I'm not going to.)

Good to see you, JediKirby

Considering the bill of rights fulfills a promise to the states it makes sense and as clearly written as most of the Constitution is there are surprisingly few instances where literary techniques of the day that seem odd to us now but I understand how some might be confused by the militia-free state-arms bit but certainly not scholars.

I'm literally reading linguistic scholars debating about it right now who both seem far more interested in sentence structure based on the framer's families than anything else. You're living in a bubble if you think it's so cut and dry. I think there are far better arguments to your favor related to the inspirations for the amendment than asserting absolute truths about the VERY DEBATABLE language.

But again, for me, it comes down far more to making realistic laws that take into account results and our goals. If I were king, I'd require firearm and vehicle manufacturers to be responsible for selling their novelty wares only to those who demonstrate proficiency, maintenance, and sound mind. Not because I'm worried about the kids, but because I think both aren't taken seriously enough and so many deaths are stupid, illogical, and unnecessary. We have too little responsibility with all of our possessions, and are so loudly entitled to it. I blame those irresponsible industries selling it more than anything, personally.

Industries that refuse to regulate themselves while complaining about regulations are half-in-half-out. They should be working to prevent every single death caused by their products. We have bad custodians of capital that get paid to hide the problems rather than clean them up.

Meh, that's asinine. If a gun manufacturer was making guns that were going off unexpectedly for no reason (see: toyota unintended acceleration) then that should definitely be addressed and they should be held responsible. But if someone buys a gun and uses it to commit an illegal act, the person who did the illegal act should be held responsible. If I hit someone in the face with a shovel and kill them it's absurd to suggest the shovel manufacturer should somehow be held liable.

It sounds to me like you don't understand the concept of freedom. And that is scary

(I _really_ don't know why I'm getting involved in this -- there's no way on earth anything I say here is ever going to convince you that you're wrong, and it's highly unlikely that anything you could possibly say will convince me to destroy all my guns and just hope my house never gets broken into and that if it does the police will somehow manage to get here in less than ~25 minutes and that maybe some of us will still be alive and not beaten or raped or whatever. So... let's agree to disagree. Let's be friends. But just understand that if you come to my house, yeah there are guns here. If we meet out in public, I'm probably carrying a pistol. Unless it's illegal, like if we meet at an elementary school or a bar. But that would be really creepy. So let's not do that. And I promise I'm not going to shoot you or anyone who's not actually factually trying to kill me or someone I love. I promise.)

What? I literally said I enjoy guns and am okay with people owning them. I'm not uncomfortable with them at all.

I just think the rote assumption that being an American Citizen means you have all of the qualifications and responsibility to own a gun is dumb. I don't want governments determining whether or not I am of sound mind to own a gun, though. I wish the manufacturers and people who create the culture around their weapons, and their vehicles, were more responsible about it. If they licensed their own consumers, the institution could be a respected entity without needing government bureaucracy to invade individual lives. I am in fact interested in more freedom. I don't think individuals should be without responsibility when committing a crime, I simply think corporations should WANT to take more responsibility for the undeniably preventable deaths caused by stupid people. It's not like they don't have the money, resources, or even incentive to do so--it's just that our system right now is more interested in blame than solving problems.

Early drone manufacturers had an opportunity to be in charge of their own industry and gain respect from the public and other industries they were encroaching upon. Instead of packing logbooks and instructing users on flight laws, rules, and regulations, drones tried to avoid the red tape by treating them like toys. Now the idiot government's involved and you've got senators making rules about technology they'll never understand--instead of letting the industry guide the laws. I don't care about the idealism you guys are barking about. I'm done with that bull**** in life. If you want to have fun, safe recreational guns, and maintaining the hero self image that you're going to shoot the bad guys without idiot governments getting involved, let's demonstrate a culture of safety and intelligence, not the constant noise of entitlement and paranoia.

Your stupid shovel comparison is stupid. Shovels don't have that kind of impact on the environment around them. Don't be daft. Giant shovels called backhoes require permits and there are entire institutions related to the culture of safety related to their use. If backhoes caused a certain kind of injury, the industry would work to minimize that by either their advertising, training, or design of the product. Not because it was faulty, but because people kept making the same mistakes. If people make mistakes with weapons like leaving them out of their case and get kids killed, they can take that as a responsibility of their industry to address that with technology and the culture they invest in. This is good for us as consumers, and for corporations because it means we are less likely to pressure our leaders into regulating them. I'm not talking about goddamned communism or burning all of the guns, I am talking about gun manufacturers treating their products as the specialized, dangerous tools that they sell.

Most companies these days are just ad firms that outsource manufacturing anyway. We're so compartmentalized and divorced from eachother, but so are the parts of a company. The connective tissue of things is what you cannot measure then capitalize on. Corporations don't work the way I want them to anymore, so maybe I'm the idealist.

Something else that has to matter: a shovel is a tool that is designed for a purpose -- to dig. Even though one could feasibly use a shovel for a purpose aside from its intended one, and harm someone by injuring them with it, it would be foolish not to sell shovels. We need to do the thing that they're helpful for.

But guns are designed for the explicit purpose of taking human lives. If we sell guns to people, isn't it because we think people should be able to do the thing that they're designed to do?

Which brings me to this:



I can see how gun ownership can be empowering — in that it gives those who own guns the power to take another’s life, even if only in self-defense. But I’m not sure, exactly, how gun ownership makes a person more free.

If I can own a gun, I have power that I wouldn’t otherwise have — the power to kill efficiently.

But if you can own a gun too, then your power to use your gun could potentially end my life.

So I’m giving you the power to kill me easily (that is, the capacity, even if you have no intention of making use of it), and I have to trust you, that, even though you have this power, you’ll be responsible with it — not only that you won’t intentionally use your gun to hurt me without justification, but that you’ll maintain your weapon properly, so you won't harm me inadvertently.

So, while gun ownership may empower individuals who own guns, if everyone in society can own a gun, it may also make life in society more precarious and dangerous.

I’ve lived most of my life in places with strict gun laws, so, without having lived in places with wider gun ownership, I suspect that I’ve been insulated from a certain situation, one where I have to trust people whom I don’t know to have the power to end my life responsibly, and to use it responsibly.

But, I'll admit, this may be an exceptionally paranoid way to parse gun ownership. So I’ll ask: what do you mean when you talk about gun ownership, and the way in which it guarantees (or provides) freedom?

In theory, yes. However, it's dependent upon having both an informed electorate & politicians that are genuine patriots (persons that are willing to make personal sacrifices for the greater good). We don't currently have an informed electorate, which isn't surprising given the state of our educational institutions & our cultural anti-intellectualism tendencies. This results in things like belief without reason being a virtue & thinking that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Unfortunately, this criteria isn't currently being met, even less so by the majority of one party in particular, that has demonstrated repeatedly that they're not patriots & that they in fact don't hold values that are conducive to progress. They pretend that they want Little House on the Prairie but their methods are more Mad Max. As an Independent, I won't pretend that the Democrats aren't guilty of many of the same things, but no serious thinker would claim that their policies are nearly as disastrous across the board, & I think that we're far more likely at this point to straighten things out a bit with an aggressive & progressive agenda put forth by the Dems if they control all houses.

This is demonstrably false because there are many gun-toting Americans who question the intent & meaning of the Second Amendment, while simultaneously owning & potentially enjoying their firearms. I grew up in rural Kentucky & have used firearms for most of my life. My family has a small arsenal that the local sheriff's department would be envious of. I don't personally own a firearm (I've lived in France for five years), but everyone in my family owns more than they can carry, & so long as it's legal, I support their right to do so. I'm not alone. A little research & benefit of the doubt will yield many others that have a similar opinion.


There would certainly be some number of people like this, but I see no reason to take your assertion that they'd all be like this, seriously. The fact is that it isn't written like that & you can pretend that it's written in modern syntactical style, but there's a reason that the Christian bible has so many translations & so many people arguing over them. Because intent & language matters. It's a real shame that we're not able to agree to update the language of our Constitution, to use modern language & syntax, but to also reflect the values of modern society.


Interestingly enough, if you look into the history of eating utensils, you'll see a correlation between the invention & use of the fork, & people stabbing the **** out of each-other at the dinner table. Unfortunately, for ninjas & ****, the blow gun & nunchakus lobby isn't as influential as the NRA.



Firearms, as a means of protection, are essentially a form of mutually assured destruction. Bob thinks that he needs a firearm because Tims might come at him with his. The legalization of assault rifles (yes, I said it to throw the right-wingers into a rage) is essentially an arms race. Bob thinks that he needs an AR15 because he knows that Tims may have one too. Meanwhile, Bob's son drowned to death because he didn't secure his swimming pool, & his wife was run over by a semi-advanced ape (aka teenager) using a small computer while driving through an intersection. Nearly all the Tims turned out to just be watching Netflix & totally had no interest in killing Bob. Granted, there's nothing wrong with Bob wanting to protect himself, but did he ever stop to think that if he & everyone else like him didn't insist upon protecting themselves with a boogeyman killing machine, that the boogeyman might actually be able to kill far fewer people, or at least make it a bit more difficult?


I can't speak about WA, but in KY, we can drive down the street in a ****ing tank. Thanks, Obama!


Those numbers aren't included because there's some sort of left-wing conspiracy. They're included because the research shows that the risk of suicide (not to mention homicides) increases with firearms in the home & so does the success rate. Also, suicide by firearm is violent.


Please explain to me how shooting someone isn't violent? Do you seriously not want to see a reduction in the number of persons killed, including those persons that may break into someone's home for a multitude of reasons beyond their control (e.g. mental illness) or even just plain stupidity (e.g. teenager making bad decision)? While I would certainly try to defend myself if someone broke into my home, I don't precisely find the person breaking into my home's life meaningless. Things aren't so black & white. There are methods of securing your home & things & protecting your family that don't involve killing people. My father-in-law once walked in on a homeless guy sleeping on his couch. The guy got up, apologized, & left. If this had been in the U.S. instead of France, he could've easily been killed. If he had been black, it'd have been nearly a certainty.


Yes. People have said the same thing about the death penalty throughout history, yet people continue to commit murder.

I've had an endoscopy, but this is my first contextomy.


Sure. Please tell me how remarking on the vagueness of a sentence correlates with me not having studied American history.

It's really not that difficult to understand that the syntax, when not taken out of context, makes it vague. This really isn't a controversial statement & I'm certainly not the first to make it. I won't ask you if you know the purpose of a comma though, because that'd be a dick move.


Language has changed, Wookie. Try to keep up. I can't imagine very many situations where context & intent aren't important.

Instead of talking past each-other & making unreasonable assumptions, let's play a game of strong-manning. Feel free to tell me if I'm straw-manning instead.

• I think that the Second Amendment is vague in 2016 (not self-evident), contrary to what you stated. Since no one today speaks like the authors did, it's imperative that we understand the differences in syntax, but also using external sources for context & intent as a fail-safe. At worst, it's redundancy. Otherwise, I think we put ourselves at risk of succumbing to tradition instead of facts.
• You think that the Second Amendment isn't vague (self-evident) & by me asserting the opposite, I'm attempting to undermine its meaning, because I don't want people to have access to firearms.

No, because the SCOTUS is often all that stands between us & congressocalypse. Also, I disagree with your strict-interpretationist sentiment.

Dat's how we do, Brian. All of those issues have been revisited & will continue to be revisited. Our president-elect claims to think that women should be punished for having abortions, for instance, & he's possibly going to try & replace Scalia with a justice that agrees. You brought up civil rights. The Voting Rights Act was just revisited in 2013.

Re: US conservatives in general, I'm not sure why you expect US progressives to take constitutional arguments for firearm ownership seriously, when most of you reject similar constitutional arguments around abortion and racial/religious persecution. Both of you seem to think that the reversal or enforcement of these "constitutional" "rights" is contingent upon the appointment of a single Supreme Court justice. If that's true, it doesn't seem like much of a right at all.

But the right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the second amendment. Abortion can't even be considered to be indirectly considered in the constitution, racial persecution was not mentioned at all (why would it?), and religious freedom is specifically protected from infringement by the federal government.

As much as I feel these discussions get repetitive and mostly waste time, I have to say that they are good exercises for the mind. I thought about this last night, that if there is a more accurate interpretation of the second amendment, how could it have been written to more clearly reflect that? We should be able to agree that the right to bear arms without infringement is clear so if it revolves around the first part, is there a better way to phrase it, keeping the original intent, that changes or puts a condition on the latter part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I think it's clear that a Militia is not a standing army. A Militia is formed and organized from the citizenry as needed for defense. Clearly we know that during that period Militias were formed and organized as defense against their tyrannical government (the British) during the war for independence. If we are clear on this point we can move forward.

I think a reasonable interpretation of a well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free state, according to context, is a grouping of citizens formed and organized for the defense of the state against an oppressive government or other force. I personally don't find anything in the second amendment that suggests under whose authority nor do I find that by taking into account the broader scope of the Bill of Rights which some suggest should lead us to believe the second amendment applies only to the states.

Now, "being necessary"? That seems awfully clear but does it mean "when/if/as/etc necessary" rather than simply declaring that it is? I don't believe so because, again, under whose authority? Also, considering that we now have a standing military force does that negate "being necessary"? Again, I don't believe so as a Militia isn't a standing force and the military is a force of a government that could (and has been) a hostile force in its own country.

So, I didn't intend to argue interpretation first but considering my points above it would be clear that in order to support the first part, the individual's right to arms cannot be infringed. So, while not intended to be an all encompassing list, I was thinking that those with a different opinion might be happier with these:

"A well regulated Militia, if necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't really like that one, and it's going to be a general problem here, because who is the deciding authority? Still, it makes the right to bear a little less strict.

"When necessary, a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Not as bad, definitely ties the right to bear to a less permanent condition but definitely gets away from the matter of fact "being necessary". If they meant something more like this, certainly they would have written it differently.

So, if they considered the right to bear somehow conditional then certainly they would have a clearly defined authority. If this were the case I think they would have wanted to guard against a corrupt executive and against angry mobs so that would exclude presidential and House authority. Considering that senators were appointed by the several states, I think it's logical they would have specified the senate and/or state legislatures. Maybe something like this:

"When, as determined by two thirds of the Senate or two thirds of the legislatures of the several states, a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Might look terrible to some and great to others but there is a big issue with this if you're anti-gun freedom. All the states or the senate had to do was determine the right necessary EVER and then it's probably even a more clearly defined protection in the eyes of gun control advocates. So, really, all you can do to satisfy those that think the second amendment is not a blanket protection of an individual right is to wish that it was written in a way so different from the way it is that it really wouldn't resemble it at all.

Or just get five schmucks on the supreme court to do it for you.

I mean, technically Sparta was a monarchy, but they had checks and balances on the monarchy and a constitution. Also they were a continuous city-state for 900 years.

That's neat. 300 was pretty cool too. The film, I mean. Never read the graphic novel. I liked the sequel too.

I think it's obvious that I support the right to keep and bear arms and in this thread I've been debating about the meaning of the second amendment but it occurs to me that I've never actually said what I personally think about the text of the second amendment. In fact, I might not ever had thought much about that. I have thought about the clear contradictions when we have so many restrictions, many of them common sense, versus text that says "shall not be infringed." Clearly we don't want certain people armed but how is it that we have absolutely zero distinction in the second amendment? Perhaps they really meant no restriction. Perhaps they were short sighted. Perhaps, in fact, this point could end up being the basis for the best argument that the second amendment's personal guaranty of the right to keep and bear is not a protection of an individual right.

I do still believe that it is an individual right and that the amendment was designed to protect it but I think most people believe that there are some people that just should not be armed. So how do we determine that and who should be that authority? I'm sure someone somewhere has come up with the same solution I have. Considering how important this issue is to so many people, a change would have to be one bearable to all. It came to me quite quickly. The second amendment of the constitution should be amended as follows:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of all persons eligible to vote in the several States, shall not be infringed."

While I personally love this, I know most of you will hate it. It would give the states greater flexibility to determine who can own a weapon. Don't want insane people owning a weapon? Make them ineligible to vote. Terrorist watch list? Felon? This also will elevate the issue of voting. California wants everybody and their cousin voting? Fine, they all get guns too!

In all seriousness the sort of people that we should want armed are those that are able to fully function in society.

Second Amendment arguments are more complicated than you've suggested, even discounting the entailment portion. Those arguments run the gamut: what it means to infringe upon the rights to keep and bear arms; how the amendment extends to the acquisition, transfer, and operation of firearms; how firearm should be interpreted in a modern context, and what that means for specific firearms, ammunition, and accessories; how the government can accomplish social goals while satisfying this constitutional obligation.

The 13th and 14th amendment arguments against abortion prohibition are not meaningfully more complicated, nor are the arguments around affirmative action or Trump's Muslim watchlist, or the arguments around state surveillance, or any other popular issue. These discussions are so divisive precisely because there is so much room for interpretation and debate, and consequently so much room for a compliant Supreme Court to enact extreme social change.

You think your Second Amendment argument is straightforward because you already believe it. You assume that other people disagree, not because they don't understand the issue the same way you do, but because they are sneaky liberals trying to do an end run around the Constitution. And progressives see you the exact same way concerning social issues. It is the worst kind of confirmation bias.

Good guess, but I'll bet you can't explain why.

Of course I can. To your previous post, there is no reason to believe the amendment is meant to limit firearms based on any of the criteria you suggested. Why would would there be?

Because the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about acquisition or operation of arms, or states that some necessary variety of arms must be made available for purchase. The Second Amendment only says that the government must not prohibit you from owning some sort of firearm. You are reading more into the text than is actually there. The fact that you don't understand this was my whole point.

It's worth saying that legislators from neither side have interest in treating it as an "anything goes" rule, as suggested by your supposedly obvious interpretation .

I said earlier I'm not going to contribute to this thread anymore (at least not about guns) but I'm going to be very clear that I side with the democrats almost 100% (maybe fully 100% but they're so difficult to listen to for more than 5 minutes) on many issues -- including racial equality, gender equality, LGBT rights, and environmental issues. Let's not confuse the gun debate with "conservatives vs. liberals" although for some reason the entire country has made it into this. (I know, I know, I may be the first person on this thread to do that as well -- and for that, I'm sorry.)

Well I mean, maybe to you the inevitable extinction of humans, or other things like mass migrations and immense human suffering from climate change aren't a problem, but outside of you they are very serious and dangerous.

I think you may have misread my post.

Definitely

That's an abusive reading of the text. You might as well say that congress can make laws abridging freedom of speech as long as it doesn't ban all speech. In context, it's pretty clear they were referring to the ownership of arms feasible for military use.



You realize that target shooting is an Olympic sport right? And hunting is one of the most popular outdoor activites in the US? And that many people buy military firearms as collector's items? I would guess that the wide majority of firearms purchased are not primarily intended for self-defense.

The Federal AWB was never successfully challenged under the Second Amendment. I somehow doubt it's as abusive a reading as you would like to think

Automatic weapons have a relatively niche use in warfare. I'd argue that it should be challenged, as they really aren't very lethal and they don't have much purpose beyond a collector's toy or as part of an organized military force. Technically though, they aren't banned. You just have to buy one made or imported before 1986.