Once again, regarding OTHER than just a militia:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

The founders never intended it's citizens to be defenseless against criminals.


But, back to the 2nd Amendment regarding an armed militia, a military weapon is usually an assault weapon. To outlaw them should be construed as unconstitutional and voiding the premise of the 2nd Amendment. I do not feel the need for an assault weapon, but will the government limit it's definition of "assault weapon" to machine guns, or fully automatic weapons? Because many of us have military surplus weapons that do shoot semi-automatic, and so do most of the pistols sold today. Military weapons are technically weapons of war, or assault weapons. It is interesting that the same people that wish to limit and re-define what is considered an assault weapon are the same people that do not know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic and magazine versus ammo clip.

But to link this diatribe to the subject of the thread, this incident proves the value of more GOOD competent citizens being equipped with firearms.