Reply #17: We probably won't ever have to

[slackmaster]

Both the regulated militia (i.e. National Guard) and the unregulated militia (the population at large) get mustered mostly for natural disasters, and in that role both serve vital functions. Arms come into play only to suppress looting and lawlessness in the aftermath of a flood, hurricane, earthquake, fire, etc., and that alone is plenty of reason to nurture and protect the right to keep and bear arms in the "well-regulated Militia" context. I'd like to make it clear that for me there are other valid reasons for people in general to have the option of owning and using weapons, but since this is a militia thread I'm answering in that context.

I would not want to be caught unarmed in a situation where the normal civil order has broken down, however briefly. If my neighborhood was cut off from the rest of the city by an earthquake (a scenario that seems to me unlikely but possible), I'm confident that the people here would band together immediately to protect each other and our common interests.

Is this enough to allow people to have the Uzi's they really want?

The only reason I'd want an Uzi would be for amusement. I consider my M1 Garand to be my primary "militia" weapon. It also makes a nice home-defense piece. And since neither the state nor the federal government consider it to be an "assault weapon", I oppose HR 2038 which would likely tar it with that stigma.