war-tier ? wth is that?
self- and family-defense is very important

It means having more warts than someone else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association

It means that in (several, not all) States you can buy war wepons. Not a pistol, revolver or hunting shotgun, but a powerful assault rifle, sniper carabines or even explosives.
My opinion is that all weapons should be banned for civilians, period, but even if you think wepons are necessary for self defense, I have a hard time justifying milatary grade equipment under that point of view.
Either your 50 neighbours really, really hate you and rush your house together, or I really don't think you need a machine gun.

A Typical politician who knows nothing and says baseless garbage with no proof. Also this court case that was mentioned states that the Judge ruled in favor of Games being part of protected speech which is huge because the results of this case can be shown to this brainless idiot saying that games are protected under protected speech it will take a lot to change that and get a banning of violent games.

glad it is not up to you to decide, automatic rifles are way better to defend yourself than mere revolvers
20+ bullets >>>> 6 , it is very hard to aim when someone is attacking your family , so i would pick more bullets anytime to increase the chance to defeat the threat
btw have you seen shooting movies , everybody is cool until someone brings out a large mag rifle , then they know who they not to mess with their little handguns

btw war weapons are artillery, tanks etc. , rifles are defense weapons

Precisely. Assault rifles in particular are defensive weapons. Last time I was in Syria the fighters were just waiting for somebody to use a mortar so they could activate the counter ability, as Ak-47s shoot only in retaliation.

rolls eyes

The entire point of the second amendment was to keep the people armed so that a tyrannical government could not take away their freedoms and turn guns on the people. Ever since the founding fathers put that power in our hands, the government has been trying to walk it back as much as possible because it weakens their own position with the people.
I own 2 assault rifles. I've never fired either at another person, and never fired any weapon at another person in aggression. Your assumption is that an assault weapon cannot be used for defense. Most shootings don't involve assault weapons. In the few that did, in many the assault weapon wasn't even used. If the government can bring military grade weapons down on the people, we need to be able to respond in kind.

Ah, the second amendment has been named, it means everything is now covered in petrol and there's a spak dangerously close to appear nearby.
I'll see myself out before the shit flinging starts.

Ah. Someone needs a bit of cheap publicity.

Jefferson was quite open about his motivations. The thing to fundamentally understand about the United States' foundation is that it simultaneously doesn't trust government, while also understanding that anarchy is not good, either. The first 10 amendments was called "The Bill of Rights" specifically for that reason: it was to set hard limits on the federal government.

But, notice the underlined portion. It is for that same reason that the first amendment does not apply to companies. But, the founders were very clear: have some quotes.

imho it clearly says it is to defend against oppression
and we dont need a clergy class to tell us what the text means

Btw... I first read "Lawnmower in Chicago..." - guess I'm tired...

I mean this, for example, one of the quotes from the web you linked:

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

What I mean is that in revolutionary times it was a convenient ammendment to protect themselves from external and internal barebones federal government. Lack of laws, lack of control and all of this in a germinal state.

But The militia that, for example, Elbridge Gerry of Massachussets is reffering to, He and and others and the second ammendment itself is what later was called the National Guard, not exactly the Army itself. For reasons all you americans know.
That Guard is the modern times well regulated militia, in my point of view.

When two hundred years have passed, when a lot of laws where created, control systems for the federal government and states themselves were created, and when the young democracy is not so young anymore, I consider that the interpretation of the second ammendment should be different than in the eighteenth century. It should be considered a legacy and treated it in consecuence.