# 'Assault weapon' bans:  Constitutional?



## M14 Shooter

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.


----------



## Vast LWC

Hmm...

I agree with you that assault weapon bans are BS, but...

What does this mean, exactly?



> and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm



What are "traditional legal uses", specifically?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Vast LWC said:


> Hmm...
> I agree with you that assault weapon bans are BS, but...
> What does this mean, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> What are "traditional legal uses", specifically?
Click to expand...

In the reveant case, the court spoke specifically of self-defense - but, other clear examples are hunting and target shooting.   
The AR-15 is suitable for any of these, save for the obvious purpose of hunting ducks/geese.


----------



## there4eyeM

Why are fully automatics banned, then?


----------



## Borillar

M14 Shooter said:


> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.



The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?


----------



## M14 Shooter

there4eyeM said:


> Why are fully automatics banned, then?


They aren't.
Do you have an argument...?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Borillar said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,

Please try again.


----------



## Borillar

M14 Shooter said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,
> 
> Please try again.
Click to expand...


Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it? "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." The founders didn't believe in standing armies. Each state had its own militia. Now we have a large standing Army, Reserves, and National Guard. The National Guard is the "well regulated militia" of today. Military troops are not allowed to carry their assigned weapons around town or even on military bases. What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sure, if Congress says so, since "common usage" can't be used to include them.


----------



## Firehorse

Militias are not kept in place, they are called in times of need. In the times of the founding papers, this was the case and is to this day. The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government. If the people are not already armed in such a case, you wouldn't expect the very government that the people are rising up against arming them do you?

The people need the weapons needed to throw off a government ... In today's time that means assault weapons


----------



## JakeStarkey

False reasoning.  The unorganized militia is subject to military call up at any time.  The government can organize that militia any time it wishes.

Civic Virtue not militia weapons keeps our government in check.

No need exists for any citizen to have a guided missile frigate in his pool.


----------



## Firehorse

A guided missile frigate would make for a great conversation starter at the next family reunion.

Civic virtue. Really? How many tyrants in history have cared about civic virtue? They tend to lie to the population until they have enough power to execute the checkmate and take total power.

Personal gun ownership is the people holding the ultimate checkmate over a government that has overstepped its position


----------



## Firehorse

No one, me included, wants to have to use the second amendment for the purpose it was put in the document. But that I and many other Americans would and could enforce the will of the people on a run away government is something that I take pride in


----------



## M14 Shooter

Borillar said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it?
Click to expand...

Read _Heller_.   

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Be sure to take note of the part that says:

_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home._

Now then --care to try again?


----------



## M14 Shooter

JakeStarkey said:


> Sure, if Congress says so, since "common usage" can't be used to include them.


Huh?


----------



## JakeStarkey

In America, civic virtue sets us aside from the tyrannies.

The Civil War should be an example for a far right weirdos who think they can stop our government in a shoot out.

The more Americans are active in politics, the more they can keep our country free.



Firehorse said:


> A guided missile frigate would make for a great conversation starter at the next family reunion.
> 
> Civic virtue. Really? How many tyrants in history have cared about civic virtue? They tend to lie to the population until they have enough power to execute the checkmate and take total power.
> 
> Personal gun ownership is the people holding the ultimate checkmate over a government that has overstepped its position


----------



## Montrovant

M14 Shooter said:


> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.



Assuming a weapon must fit all of these criteria, rather than just one of them, I wonder if the AR-15 can be considered 'in common use'.  I don't think private ownership of that type of rifle is all that common; not vanishingly uncommon either, it's a question of just what constitutes common in this context.  Does common use mean 5% of gun owners?  5% of the total population?  Does military use count toward common use?

I lean away from banning the so-called assault rifles, I'm just trying to answer your question as to how it might be constitutional to do so.


----------



## SayMyName

As for can assault weapons be banned...I believe that recently one of the more conservative Supreme Court justices has opened the door to this matter.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/


----------



## Borillar

M14 Shooter said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read _Heller_.
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> Be sure to take note of the part that says:
> 
> _The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home._
> 
> Now then --care to try again?
Click to expand...


Thank you for the link. I stand corrected. I did note that licensing and registration of firearms was permissible.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vast LWC said:


> Hmm...
> 
> I agree with you that assault weapon bans are BS, but...
> 
> What does this mean, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm
> 
> 
> 
> What are "traditional legal uses", specifically?
Click to expand...


Anything that does not involve committing murder and/or assault.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

bodecea said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are fully automatics banned, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they shouldn't be.   Imagine the fun in a movie theater then.
Click to expand...


Didn't that guy have some explosives? those are illegal, but he still had them.


----------



## Vidi

sorry that was asked and answered - post deleted by poster


----------



## Vidi

M14 Shooter said:


> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.



Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.

Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.

Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment? 

I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.

Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.

If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?




If you agree with the above, then the debate becomes about what is considered reasonable as oppsed to a "BAN ALL GUNS!" vs "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"  battle, which isnt a debate, in my opinion, but a stand off.


----------



## Oddball

JakeStarkey said:


> False reasoning.  The unorganized militia is subject to military call up at any time.  The government can organize that militia any time it wishes.
> 
> Civic Virtue not militia weapons keeps our government in check.
> 
> *No need exists for any citizen to have a guided missile frigate in his pool.*


Stupid analogy...Nobody can "bear" a missile frigate.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

there4eyeM said:


> Why are fully automatics banned, then?



They are only banned in 13 states. The rest allow them. As to why? The Court has not to my knowledge been ask to defend the ban in those States. They were made requiring a Federal license because of the crime sprees with tommy guns in the early 30's.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Borillar said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
Click to expand...


The current court ruled it is a Individual right separate from membership in a State militia. Do keep up.


----------



## Borillar

Vidi said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.
> 
> Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.
> 
> Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment?
> 
> I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.
> 
> Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.
> 
> If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you agree with the above, then the debate becomes about what is considered reasonable as oppsed to a "BAN ALL GUNS!" vs "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"  battle, which isnt a debate, in my opinion, but a stand off.
Click to expand...


Apparently, all a person needs to do in order to get an automatic weapon is that the purchaser pass a Federal background check and pay a $200 transfer stamp tax upon delivery of the device. If one was to discourage the general populace from having such weapons, perhaps all that is needed is to extend the requirements to semi-automatic weapons and handguns and increase the transfer stamp tax to several thousand dollars per weapon.


----------



## Vidi

Borillar said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.
> 
> Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.
> 
> Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment?
> 
> I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.
> 
> Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.
> 
> If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you agree with the above, then the debate becomes about what is considered reasonable as oppsed to a "BAN ALL GUNS!" vs "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"  battle, which isnt a debate, in my opinion, but a stand off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently, all a person needs to do in order to get an automatic weapon is that the purchaser pass a Federal background check and pay a $200 transfer stamp tax upon delivery of the device. If one was to discourage the general populace from having such weapons, perhaps all that is needed is to extend the requirements to semi-automatic weapons and handguns and increase the transfer stamp tax to several thousand dollars per weapon.
Click to expand...



Semi autos can be converted by people with the will and know how ( which is fairly easily accessible ) 

But the question becomes: Does placing a large tax on them then become an interference with the rights of the manufacturer itself? And if it does, but is acceptable, wouldnt low sales force them to design something that would escape the tax while maintaining the same firepower?

Just some thoughts.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.



Add to the AR the various AK/M clones, likely owned by almost as many Americans.  

An assault weapons ban would not pass a rational basis review, as such a restriction would not be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. 

Indeed, there is no consensus as to what constitutes an assault weapon, or that they even exist in the civilian market. 

To ban a weapon based solely on its cosmetic configuration, magazine design, or ammunition capacity is thus un-Constitutional. 



> If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?



Yes, the Second Amendment is not absolute, as with other civil rights. But banning assault weapons is not a reasonable restriction. 

Also remember that per _Heller_, the Second Amendment codifies the right to defend oneself, upon which the individual right to own a firearm is predicated.


----------



## Vidi

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add to the AR the various AK/M clones, likely owned by almost as many Americans.
> 
> An assault weapons ban would not pass a rational basis review, as such a restriction would not be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
> 
> Indeed, there is no consensus as to what constitutes an assault weapon, or that they even exist in the civilian market.
> 
> To ban a weapon based solely on its cosmetic configuration, magazine design, or ammunition capacity is thus un-Constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Second Amendment is not absolute, as with other civil rights. But banning assault weapons is not a reasonable restriction.
> 
> Also remember that per _Heller_, the Second Amendment codifies the right to defend oneself, upon which the individual right to own a firearm is predicated.
Click to expand...



I agree with your entire post. Well said.


----------



## Borillar

Vidi said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.
> 
> Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.
> 
> Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment?
> 
> I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.
> 
> Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.
> 
> If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you agree with the above, then the debate becomes about what is considered reasonable as oppsed to a "BAN ALL GUNS!" vs "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"  battle, which isnt a debate, in my opinion, but a stand off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, all a person needs to do in order to get an automatic weapon is that the purchaser pass a Federal background check and pay a $200 transfer stamp tax upon delivery of the device. If one was to discourage the general populace from having such weapons, perhaps all that is needed is to extend the requirements to semi-automatic weapons and handguns and increase the transfer stamp tax to several thousand dollars per weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Semi autos can be converted by people with the will and know how ( which is fairly easily accessible )
> 
> But the question becomes: Does placing a large tax on them then become an interference with the rights of the manufacturer itself? And if it does, but is acceptable, wouldnt low sales force them to design something that would escape the tax while maintaining the same firepower?
> 
> Just some thoughts.
Click to expand...


Well, I've seen people very quick with revolvers, but even with speed loaders they wouldn't be as fast as a good semiautomatic.

Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Montrovant said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming a weapon must fit all of these criteria, rather than just one of them, I wonder if the AR-15 can be considered 'in common use'.  I don't think private ownership of that type of rifle is all that common; not vanishingly uncommon either, it's a question of just what constitutes common in this context.  Does common use mean 5% of gun owners?  5% of the total population?  Does military use count toward common use?
Click to expand...

The 'common use at the time' refers to military use, as the term comes from US v Miller.   A clone of the USGI service rifle, it doesn't get a lot more 'common' in this context.


----------



## copsnrobbers

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TepdEvqV8lw&feature=player_embedded]Keller&#39;s Riverside Store CHL radio ad - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## M14 Shooter

SayMyName said:


> As for can assault weapons be banned...I believe that recently one of the more conservative Supreme Court justices has opened the door to this matter.


We'll have to see" isn't much of a leg to stand on - never mind the fact that no justice worth his robes presages his decision of a case that's not yet been brought before him.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Borillar said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it?
> 
> 
> 
> Read _Heller_.
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> Be sure to take note of the part that says:
> 
> _The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home._
> 
> Now then --care to try again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for the link. I stand corrected. I did note that licensing and registration of firearms was permissible.
Click to expand...

You'll have to cite the text in _Heller_ that says this.


----------



## Vidi

Borillar said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, all a person needs to do in order to get an automatic weapon is that the purchaser pass a Federal background check and pay a $200 transfer stamp tax upon delivery of the device. If one was to discourage the general populace from having such weapons, perhaps all that is needed is to extend the requirements to semi-automatic weapons and handguns and increase the transfer stamp tax to several thousand dollars per weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semi autos can be converted by people with the will and know how ( which is fairly easily accessible )
> 
> But the question becomes: Does placing a large tax on them then become an interference with the rights of the manufacturer itself? And if it does, but is acceptable, wouldnt low sales force them to design something that would escape the tax while maintaining the same firepower?
> 
> Just some thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've seen people very quick with revolvers, but even with speed loaders they wouldn't be as fast as a good semiautomatic.
> 
> Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.
Click to expand...


True, but  to expound upon your point. A well trained or well practiced individual can be much more deadly with a semi auto mandgun than a fully automatic assault rifle in the hands of a rank amatuer. 

So an assault weapons ban or hefty fees on assualt weapons may look like the obvious answer but I think that the issue is more situational which may be where the problem with finding a reasonable solution lies.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Vidi said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.
> 
> Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.
> 
> Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment?
> 
> I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.
> 
> Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.
Click to expand...

All of these restrictions are based on the idea that the 1st amendment does not protect speech that causes harm (libel, slander, child porn)or places people in a condition of immediate, clear and present danger (fire in a theater).  For this line of reasoning to hold water, you need to show that --simple posession/ownership-- of an AR-15 and GI magazines does one or both of these things.


----------



## Darkwind

M14 Shooter said:


> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.


I am going to have to see the source for these claims.  I know of no SCOTUS ruling in which the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to the appropriate service in the Militia.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Vidi said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Semi autos can be converted by people with the will and know how ( which is fairly easily accessible )
> 
> But the question becomes: Does placing a large tax on them then become an interference with the rights of the manufacturer itself? And if it does, but is acceptable, wouldnt low sales force them to design something that would escape the tax while maintaining the same firepower?
> 
> Just some thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've seen people very quick with revolvers, but even with speed loaders they wouldn't be as fast as a good semiautomatic.
> 
> Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but  to expound upon your point. A well trained or well practiced individual can be much more deadly with a semi auto mandgun than a fully automatic assault rifle in the hands of a rank amatuer.
Click to expand...

A smart shooter with a good bolt-gun can cause considerably more damage than the loon in CO by simply shooting at distances greater than most peple can fathom.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Darkwind said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to have to see the source for these claims.  I know of no SCOTUS ruling in which the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to the appropriate service in the Militia.
Click to expand...

Please read what I said more carefully.


----------



## Vidi

M14 Shooter said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've seen people very quick with revolvers, but even with speed loaders they wouldn't be as fast as a good semiautomatic.
> 
> Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but  to expound upon your point. A well trained or well practiced individual can be much more deadly with a semi auto mandgun than a fully automatic assault rifle in the hands of a rank amatuer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A smart shooter with a good bolt-gun can cause considerably more damage than the loon in CO by simply shooting at distances greater than most peple can fathom.
Click to expand...



exactly


----------



## Borillar

Vidi said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but  to expound upon your point. A well trained or well practiced individual can be much more deadly with a semi auto mandgun than a fully automatic assault rifle in the hands of a rank amatuer.
> 
> 
> 
> A smart shooter with a good bolt-gun can cause considerably more damage than the loon in CO by simply shooting at distances greater than most peple can fathom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
Click to expand...


So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Borillar said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A smart shooter with a good bolt-gun can cause considerably more damage than the loon in CO by simply shooting at distances greater than most peple can fathom.
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?
Click to expand...

-The AR-15 mimics the USGI service rifle. in common use and ordinary equipment.
-There's a reason the army switched from bolt guns to semi-autos to assault rifles.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.



Well, some of those restrictions could be Constitutionally problematic, its what the state can prove in support of its law enacting a restriction, not what sounds or seems reasonable. 

Licensing and registration would likely manifest an undue burden, there is no evidence either would reduce crime. And registration could be construed as a 4th Amendment privacy rights violation. 

Can the state clearly document that those who took a safely class have had fewer accidents than those who did not? And what would be the rationale of the state to establish liability insurance requirements? How would liability be determined, or is the state merely exhibiting animus toward gun ownership? 

Examples of reasonable restrictions would be: prohibiting gun ownership of those adjudicated mentally ill, undocumented immigrants, and convicted felons. The state could provide documented evidence in support of such restrictions, as they contribute to a legitimate governmental interest.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink

Are you saying that if the assault weapons ban is unconstitional then nothing can be done about Assault weapons?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, some of those restrictions could be Constitutionally problematic, its what the state can prove in support of its law enacting a restriction, not what sounds or seems reasonable.
> 
> Licensing and registration would likely manifest an undue burden, there is no evidence either would reduce crime. And registration could be construed as a 4th Amendment privacy rights violation.
> 
> Can the state clearly document that those who took a safely class have had fewer accidents than those who did not? And what would be the rationale of the state to establish liability insurance requirements? How would liability be determined, or is the state merely exhibiting animus toward gun ownership?
> 
> Examples of reasonable restrictions would be: prohibiting gun ownership of those adjudicated mentally ill, undocumented immigrants, and convicted felons. The state could provide documented evidence in support of such restrictions, as they contribute to a legitimate governmental interest.
Click to expand...


Accidental death by firearms is usually less then 1000 people a year. Out of a Population of over 300 million and a weapon population of a similar number the incidence of accidental shootings is to low to justify requiring safety classes one must pay for.

I though would not mind a return to gun safety taught in school and else where.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> Are you saying that if the assault weapons ban is unconstitional then nothing can be done about Assault weapons?



The very definition of an assault weapon makes it unbannable vis a via the current Supreme Court ruling and previous ones.


----------



## Vidi

Borillar said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A smart shooter with a good bolt-gun can cause considerably more damage than the loon in CO by simply shooting at distances greater than most peple can fathom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?
Click to expand...


The person at the trigger is the deciding factor as to the deadliness of the weapon. 

In the end, the right to bear arms is not about need, as it is about the right itself. People can name off a variety of reasons why we "need" access to those weapons ( theyre all pretty much moot ) but the right exists, so therefore is exercised. 

I dont hunt with a AR-15. I dont NEED an AR-15. But if one is available, I want to own it, because I know others will.

Now if youre one that favors a restriction on gun ownership, then what criteria will you choose to base that restriction on?


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink

RetiredGySgt said:


> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that if the assault weapons ban is unconstitional then nothing can be done about Assault weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very definition of an assault weapon makes it unbannable vis a via the current Supreme Court ruling and previous ones.
Click to expand...


Then for what reason was Article V included in the constition?


----------



## Borillar

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, some of those restrictions could be Constitutionally problematic, its what the state can prove in support of its law enacting a restriction, not what sounds or seems reasonable.
> 
> Licensing and registration would likely manifest an undue burden, there is no evidence either would reduce crime. And registration could be construed as a 4th Amendment privacy rights violation.
> 
> Can the state clearly document that those who took a safely class have had fewer accidents than those who did not? And what would be the rationale of the state to establish liability insurance requirements? How would liability be determined, or is the state merely exhibiting animus toward gun ownership?
> 
> Examples of reasonable restrictions would be: prohibiting gun ownership of those adjudicated mentally ill, undocumented immigrants, and convicted felons. The state could provide documented evidence in support of such restrictions, as they contribute to a legitimate governmental interest.
Click to expand...


What I am trying to point out is that the government could effectively ban certain classes of firearms without actually banning anything. Just making people jump through lots of hoops can be an effective deterrent.


----------



## The Infidel

Can a pencil be considered an asault weapon if I decided to stab someone in the neck with it?

I mean after all.... a pencil cant kill without me at the other end of it 

Is that a "clean" enough question?


BTW, that question got me kicked off the jury in a capital murder trial


----------



## Darkwind

M14 Shooter said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to have to see the source for these claims.  I know of no SCOTUS ruling in which the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to the appropriate service in the Militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please read what I said more carefully.
Click to expand...

There is no militia requirement for the 2nd Amendment. 

None whatever.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink

The Infidel said:


> Can a pencil be considered an asault weapon if I decided to stab someone in the neck with it?
> 
> I mean after all.... a pencil cant kill without me at the other end of it
> 
> Is that a "clean" enough question?
> 
> 
> BTW, that question got me kicked off the jury in a capital murder trial



No, but do pencils come in high-capacity, semi-automatic form?


----------



## Darkwind

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a pencil be considered an asault weapon if I decided to stab someone in the neck with it?
> 
> I mean after all.... a pencil cant kill without me at the other end of it
> 
> Is that a "clean" enough question?
> 
> 
> BTW, that question got me kicked off the jury in a capital murder trial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but do pencils come in high-capacity, semi-automatic form?
Click to expand...

yep...they come in packs of 12 and cases of 144.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink

Darkwind said:


> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a pencil be considered an asault weapon if I decided to stab someone in the neck with it?
> 
> I mean after all.... a pencil cant kill without me at the other end of it
> 
> Is that a "clean" enough question?
> 
> 
> BTW, that question got me kicked off the jury in a capital murder trial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but do pencils come in high-capacity, semi-automatic form?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yep...they come in packs of 12 and cases of 144.
Click to expand...


My god...our schools....its a deathtrap!:eek 
____________________________________
Second Amendment: "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."

" being* necessary *to the security of a free State" Is the coast guard not enough for "the security of a free State"? 
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Amendment


----------



## Vidi

The Infidel said:


> Can a pencil be considered an asault weapon if I decided to stab someone in the neck with it?
> 
> I mean after all.... a pencil cant kill without me at the other end of it
> 
> Is that a "clean" enough question?
> 
> 
> *BTW, that question got me kicked off the jury in a capital murder trial*



too funny...and no a pencil is not an assault weapon...unless its used to write a Mitt Romney speech DOH! 

sorry I couldnt resist that one.

My wifes cousin posted some pic of a rock with the obligatory text that the rock was an assault weapon as well.

merriam-webster defines Assault Weapon as:



> any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms



so I think we can safely eliminate anything thats not considered at least a semi automatic firearm from the discussion.

funny though.


----------



## Politico

there4eyeM said:


> Why are fully automatics banned, then?



They aren't.


----------



## Darkwind

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but do pencils come in high-capacity, semi-automatic form?
> 
> 
> 
> yep...they come in packs of 12 and cases of 144.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My god...our schools....its a deathtrap!
Click to expand...

Safe, as long as they ban straws!


----------



## Borillar

The Infidel said:


> Can a pencil be considered an asault weapon if I decided to stab someone in the neck with it?
> 
> I mean after all.... a pencil cant kill without me at the other end of it
> 
> Is that a "clean" enough question?
> 
> 
> BTW, that question got me kicked off the jury in a capital murder trial



Made me think of this...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEbpXnJGEq4]Casino - Joe Pesci alias Nicky Santoro in pen scene - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Ernie S.

Borillar said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A smart shooter with a good bolt-gun can cause considerably more damage than the loon in CO by simply shooting at distances greater than most peple can fathom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?
Click to expand...


Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"


----------



## Ernie S.

RetiredGySgt said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other restrictions or requirements might also be permissible. Licensing and registration of firearms. Safety classes, liability insurance requirements, etc. Joe Blow could still have his BFG-9000 but could wind up paying some hefty fees, licenses, and taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, some of those restrictions could be Constitutionally problematic, its what the state can prove in support of its law enacting a restriction, not what sounds or seems reasonable.
> 
> Licensing and registration would likely manifest an undue burden, there is no evidence either would reduce crime. And registration could be construed as a 4th Amendment privacy rights violation.
> 
> Can the state clearly document that those who took a safely class have had fewer accidents than those who did not? And what would be the rationale of the state to establish liability insurance requirements? How would liability be determined, or is the state merely exhibiting animus toward gun ownership?
> 
> Examples of reasonable restrictions would be: prohibiting gun ownership of those adjudicated mentally ill, undocumented immigrants, and convicted felons. The state could provide documented evidence in support of such restrictions, as they contribute to a legitimate governmental interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Accidental death by firearms is usually less then 1000 people a year. Out of a Population of over 300 million and a weapon population of a similar number the incidence of accidental shootings is to low to justify requiring safety classes one must pay for.
> 
> I though would not mind a return to gun safety taught in school and else where.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as an accidental shooting. There are far too many negligent shootings, but a properly maintained and handled weapon does not discharge on it's own. The closest thing I have seen to accidental discharge was in a house fire where a loaded Colt 1911 went off in the flaming rubble that had been the den of a home. I almost exceeded the pucker factor that day, I tell you.
The home owner's negligence, namely falling asleep while cooking and storing the .45 with a round in the pipe. Caused the discharge.


----------



## Darkwind

Ernie S. said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
> It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"
Click to expand...

Exactly right.  There are no stipulations at all.


----------



## nitroz




----------



## Vidi

Ernie S. said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, some of those restrictions could be Constitutionally problematic, its what the state can prove in support of its law enacting a restriction, not what sounds or seems reasonable.
> 
> Licensing and registration would likely manifest an undue burden, there is no evidence either would reduce crime. And registration could be construed as a 4th Amendment privacy rights violation.
> 
> Can the state clearly document that those who took a safely class have had fewer accidents than those who did not? And what would be the rationale of the state to establish liability insurance requirements? How would liability be determined, or is the state merely exhibiting animus toward gun ownership?
> 
> Examples of reasonable restrictions would be: prohibiting gun ownership of those adjudicated mentally ill, undocumented immigrants, and convicted felons. The state could provide documented evidence in support of such restrictions, as they contribute to a legitimate governmental interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accidental death by firearms is usually less then 1000 people a year. Out of a Population of over 300 million and a weapon population of a similar number the incidence of accidental shootings is to low to justify requiring safety classes one must pay for.
> 
> I though would not mind a return to gun safety taught in school and else where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an accidental shooting. There are far too many negligent shootings, but a properly maintained and handled weapon does not discharge on it's own. The closest thing I have seen to accidental discharge was in a house fire where a loaded Colt 1911 went off in the flaming rubble that had been the den of a home. I almost exceeded the pucker factor that day, I tell you.
> The home owner's negligence, namely falling asleep while cooking and storing the .45 with a round in the pipe. Caused the discharge.
Click to expand...



Remember that scene in True Lies where the Uzi ( was it an Usi? ) is falling down the stairs firing away and killing all the terrorists???

God that was funny. 

For those that dont know. That can NEVER happen. Almost all modern firearms will NOT discharge when dropped.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im going to put a disclaimer in front of my reply. I am playing devils advocate here. I have not in the past nor do I now nor will I ever support any restrictions on the right to bear arms.
> 
> Ok, Shooter, heres the ONLY arguement I have ever heard that actually made some sense.
> 
> Which is more important: The 1st or the 2nd amendment?
> 
> I would argue that they are equally important, one nor more than the other and even that they are complimentary, perhaps even symbiotic.
> 
> Yet, we have placed reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment have we not? It is illegal to walk into a crowded place and yell," FIRE!" for example. Child pornography, and other obscenities, time,place and manner restrictions and restrictions on what can and cant be broadcast on the public airwaves are other examples.
> 
> If there can be reasonable restrictions on the 1st amendment, which is no more or less important than the 2nd amendment, then in a world in which a semi automaic weapon is perfectly legal to purchase, then could there not also be reasonable restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment that protected society while still preserving the right of the individual to "bear arms"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you agree with the above, then the debate becomes about what is considered reasonable as oppsed to a "BAN ALL GUNS!" vs "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"  battle, which isnt a debate, in my opinion, but a stand off.
Click to expand...


Why is that everyone who talks about the first Amendment ends up talking about fire? If we talk about religion do people insist on talking about the moon?


----------



## Darkwind

Vidi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Accidental death by firearms is usually less then 1000 people a year. Out of a Population of over 300 million and a weapon population of a similar number the incidence of accidental shootings is to low to justify requiring safety classes one must pay for.
> 
> I though would not mind a return to gun safety taught in school and else where.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as an accidental shooting. There are far too many negligent shootings, but a properly maintained and handled weapon does not discharge on it's own. The closest thing I have seen to accidental discharge was in a house fire where a loaded Colt 1911 went off in the flaming rubble that had been the den of a home. I almost exceeded the pucker factor that day, I tell you.
> The home owner's negligence, namely falling asleep while cooking and storing the .45 with a round in the pipe. Caused the discharge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that scene in True Lies where the Uzi ( was it an Usi? ) is falling down the stairs firing away and killing all the terrorists???
> 
> God that was funny.
> 
> For those that dont know. That can NEVER happen. Almost all modern firearms will NOT discharge when dropped.
Click to expand...

No almost.....All of them will NOT discharge if dropped...

And yes, that was funny...but I was too busy looking at Jamie Lee Curtis.....hehe


----------



## Vidi

Ernie S. said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
> It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"
Click to expand...


Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed. 

Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people?  What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.

The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SayMyName said:


> As for can assault weapons be banned...I believe that recently one of the more conservative Supreme Court justices has opened the door to this matter.
> 
> Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate | Fox News



I believe you didn't actually listen to what he said.


----------



## Borillar

Vidi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
> It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.
> 
> Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people?  What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.
> 
> The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?
Click to expand...


Unless the government wants to explore regulatory roadblocks as an option to limit the number of these weapons in public hands, it would likely take a constitutional amendment to repeal or rewrite the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Darkwind

Vidi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
> It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.
> 
> Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people?  What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.
> 
> The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?
Click to expand...

I think that the founders expected us to retain the common sense of decency that they enjoyed when they wrote the Constitution.  It has been through the slow deterioration of morality and right and wrong that such things begin to appear.  We have become a society of people who think that if it isn't going their way, they should just end it for everyone who disagrees.  It is part of the "Me' Mentality.

I think that the founders would have stood up and said, we cannot curtail the rights and freedoms of the many, on the basis of the mental illness of the few.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that if the assault weapons ban is unconstitional then nothing can be done about Assault weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very definition of an assault weapon makes it unbannable vis a via the current Supreme Court ruling and previous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then for what reason was Article V included in the constition?
Click to expand...


To keep people like you amused.


----------



## Darkwind

Borillar said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
> It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.
> 
> Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people?  What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.
> 
> The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless the government wants to explore regulatory roadblocks as an option to limit the number of these weapons in public hands, it would likely take a constitutional amendment to repeal or rewrite the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

A constitutional amendment limiting the rights of the 2nd Amendment is not likely to pass.

The Constitution is NOT a living document.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a pencil be considered an asault weapon if I decided to stab someone in the neck with it?
> 
> I mean after all.... a pencil cant kill without me at the other end of it
> 
> Is that a "clean" enough question?
> 
> 
> BTW, that question got me kicked off the jury in a capital murder trial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but do pencils come in high-capacity, semi-automatic form?
Click to expand...


They come fully automatic.

Pentel Twist-Erase® III Automatic Pencils .9mm, Assorted Colors, 2 Pack | Staples®


----------



## Darkwind

Quantum Windbag said:


> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a pencil be considered an asault weapon if I decided to stab someone in the neck with it?
> 
> I mean after all.... a pencil cant kill without me at the other end of it
> 
> Is that a "clean" enough question?
> 
> 
> BTW, that question got me kicked off the jury in a capital murder trial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but do pencils come in high-capacity, semi-automatic form?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They come fully automatic.
> 
> Pentel Twist-Erase® III Automatic Pencils .9mm, Assorted Colors, 2 Pack | Staples®
Click to expand...

I should look for a pencil trebuchet.....lol

Oh, look!


----------



## Vidi

Darkwind said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but do pencils come in high-capacity, semi-automatic form?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They come fully automatic.
> 
> Pentel Twist-Erase® III Automatic Pencils .9mm, Assorted Colors, 2 Pack | Staples®
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I should look for a pencil trebuchet.....lol
> 
> Oh, look!
Click to expand...


LOL I have got to get me one of those!

thatll hold back the hordes at my door!


----------



## Borillar

Darkwind said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.
> 
> Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people?  What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.
> 
> The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the government wants to explore regulatory roadblocks as an option to limit the number of these weapons in public hands, it would likely take a constitutional amendment to repeal or rewrite the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A constitutional amendment limiting the rights of the 2nd Amendment is not likely to pass.
> 
> The Constitution is NOT a living document.
Click to expand...


Of course it is. It has been amended 27 times. It didn't come down from Mt. Sinai written in stone tablets by God.


----------



## there4eyeM

Why are fully automatics banned, then?
They are only banned in 13 states. The rest allow them. As to why? The Court has not to my knowledge been ask to defend the ban in those States. They were made requiring a Federal license because of the crime sprees with tommy guns in the early 30's.

This does show precedent for legal regulation of weapon characteristics, and, so, could be used for magazine capacity, caliber, rate of fire, etc.


----------



## there4eyeM

Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vidi said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> They come fully automatic.
> 
> Pentel Twist-Erase® III Automatic Pencils .9mm, Assorted Colors, 2 Pack | Staples®
> 
> 
> 
> I should look for a pencil trebuchet.....lol
> 
> Oh, look!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL I have got to get me one of those!
> 
> thatll hold back the hordes at my door!
Click to expand...


The Office Siege Weapon Series: The Pencil Trebuchet


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Vidi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
> It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.
> 
> Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people?  What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.
> 
> The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?
Click to expand...


So get cracking on the amendment. Notice though that NONE of the supposed solutions include an amendment. The gun grabbers want to enact new laws to do it.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

M14 Shooter said:


> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.



Various SCOTUS rulings that you haven't bothered to cite is what you mean.


----------



## editec

Nuclear weapons are NOT outlawed for citizens by the consitution according to many of USMB's resident constitutional scholars .

STILL, the USA continues to insist tht Iran doesn't have the right to build them.

Go figure


----------



## candycorn

Firehorse said:


> Militias are not kept in place, they are called in times of need. In the times of the founding papers, this was the case and is to this day. The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government. If the people are not already armed in such a case, you wouldn't expect the very government that the people are rising up against arming them do you?
> 
> The people need the weapons needed to throw off a government ... In today's time that means assault weapons



Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right? After all, you said the reason for a militia in the first place is "The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government."


----------



## FA_Q2

Ernie S. said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> exactly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
> It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"
Click to expand...

Bears repeating.  It is such a simple concept but the reality is that reasons are moot.  It does not matter why you wish to exercise your rights nor do you need to justify your doing so.  A right is a right. 





Vidi said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
> It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.
> 
> Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people?  What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.
> 
> The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?
Click to expand...

Thats what the amendment process is for.  The constitution is not a living document in that it is not supposed to be changed on a whim without undergoing the arduous process of amending it.  That is generally what is meant when people reject the living document claim.  Usually when I hear people talking about the living document they are not referring to the amendment process but rather simply ignoring the constitution because the feel certain parts are outdated or non-applicable.  The answer is not ignoring it but actually amending it.  As for the topic at hand, amending the second is nigh impossible in this climate.  I would like to see amendment passed that defines arms though to make all this hogwash more clear.  Is a nuclear bomb an arm?  Certainly not.  How about a shoulder fired rocket?  RPG?  

Yes, there needs to be more clarification on where the line is drawn because weapons are so much more complex and varied today.


OohPooPahDoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCOTUS rulings that you haven't bothered to cite is what you mean.
Click to expand...

They were cited in this thread.  Please go back and look at previous posts.  The main decision that applies here is well known anyways: Heller.


candycorn said:


> Firehorse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are not kept in place, they are called in times of need. In the times of the founding papers, this was the case and is to this day. The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government. If the people are not already armed in such a case, you wouldn't expect the very government that the people are rising up against arming them do you?
> 
> The people need the weapons needed to throw off a government ... In today's time that means assault weapons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right? After all, you said the reason for a militia in the first place is "The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government."
Click to expand...

The state???
At least I thought that was the obvious answer.  The regulated militia is, however, not a requirement for the right to bear arms.  The two are separate and a militia actually requires that separation as you need to bring your own arms to it.  That means you already need to own a gun.


there4eyeM said:


> Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?


If you believe that then you have no concept of modern warfare.  There are far more weapons in the hand of Americans than there is in the military.  Even more to the point, there is far more PROFICIENCY with those weapons as well.  Most in the military are not well trained on the use of their weapons.  Further, you simply cannot conquer an armed populous.  Holding the territory takes far more than it is actually worth.  Guerilla warfare from a determined local population is EXTREMELY effective.  Even with all the modern toys that exist.  Add to that the fact the military would be stripped bare as people left if ever called to attack their own neighborhoods.  

No, there is a clear ability for the American people to fight back, there is simply no reason whatsoever for them to have to do so in these times.  No matter how much someone may hate Obama or whoever is in the office we are not even close to that kind of desperation nor will we be for many decades.


----------



## OODA_Loop

candycorn said:


> Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right? After all, you said the reason for a militia in the first place is "The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government."



Respective State.


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.



The SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons.  However, the 2nd amendment is not just one half a sentence.  It includes regulation by the state.  So until the SC provides an opinion which states otherwise, the state has the power to regulate the type, number and frequency of your weapons purchases.  If you disagree, take it to the SC.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Borillar said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
Click to expand...


The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.

The second amendment does not say

A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says 

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

The founders did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.


----------



## SayMyName

Quantum Windbag said:


> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for can assault weapons be banned...I believe that recently one of the more conservative Supreme Court justices has opened the door to this matter.
> 
> Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you didn't actually listen to what he said.
Click to expand...


I listened to it very well. It is also in his latest book. Read the article below the video in which Scalia says that there were torts in existance at the time of the Bill of Rights being written that prevented "horrible" weapons from being carried about town, such as maces, executioner axes, etc., that would frighten people.

And before you go off...I am a 2nd Admendment supporter.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons.  However, the 2nd amendment is not just one half a sentence.  It includes regulation by the state.  So until the SC provides an opinion which states otherwise, the state has the power to regulate the type, number and frequency of your weapons purchases.  If you disagree, take it to the SC.
Click to expand...

The word regulate does not mean the same as it did back then


----------



## PratchettFan

Darkwind said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if a bolt action repeater is deadlier, what is the need for an AR15?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
> It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly right.  There are no stipulations at all.
Click to expand...


Oh, but there are.  The 2nd amendment is just one sentence, but it is a complete sentence.  It does not begin after the comma.  The stipulation is the stated intent of the amendment. Which is not that you can have any weapon you want.  The intent is a well regulated militia.  You can't have a well regulated militia without the state having the power to regulate.  So while the amendment does say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it does not say the right to keep and bear any arms a given citizen wants shall not be infringed.  

If you wish to invoke the 2nd amendment, invoke it all.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons.  However, the 2nd amendment is not just one half a sentence.  It includes regulation by the state.  So until the SC provides an opinion which states otherwise, the state has the power to regulate the type, number and frequency of your weapons purchases.  If you disagree, take it to the SC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word regulate does not mean the same as it did back then
Click to expand...


Yes, it does.  If you disagree, take it to the SC.  Until then, the 1st amendment gives you the right to complain to your heart's content - while the state regulates.


----------



## PratchettFan

there4eyeM said:


> Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?



A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army.  That would be treason.


----------



## candycorn

OODA_Loop said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right? After all, you said the reason for a militia in the first place is "The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respective State.
Click to expand...


Isn't that what the national guards are; the state "militias"?


----------



## PratchettFan

RetiredGySgt said:


> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that if the assault weapons ban is unconstitional then nothing can be done about Assault weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very definition of an assault weapon makes it unbannable vis a via the current Supreme Court ruling and previous ones.
Click to expand...


Well, given that they are indeed banned in many areas I would say this statement is false on its face.


----------



## rightwinger

PratchettFan said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army.  That would be treason.
Click to expand...


That would be suicide

Even in their glory days during the revolution, militia forces were no match for regular Army


----------



## PratchettFan

rightwinger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army.  That would be treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be suicide
> 
> Even in their glory days during the revolution, militia forces were no match for regular Army
Click to expand...


True.  However, my point was that once a "militia" takes up arms against the United States they stop being a militia and start being criminals.


----------



## rightwinger

PratchettFan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army.  That would be treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be suicide
> 
> Even in their glory days during the revolution, militia forces were no match for regular Army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True.  However, my point was that once a "militia" takes up arms against the United States they stop being a militia and start being criminals.
Click to expand...


I think the correct term is traitors

The founding fathers were very concerned about the ability of the masses to dispose of tyrannical government. That is the reason they gave them a very powerful weapon.......not the gun, but the vote

Been working for 235 years


----------



## PratchettFan

rightwinger said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be suicide
> 
> Even in their glory days during the revolution, militia forces were no match for regular Army
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.  However, my point was that once a "militia" takes up arms against the United States they stop being a militia and start being criminals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the correct term is traitors
> 
> The founding fathers were very concerned about the ability of the masses to dispose of tyrannical government. That is the reason they gave them a very powerful weapon.......not the gun, but the vote
> 
> Been working for 235 years
Click to expand...


Yes.  A regular, non-violent revolution.  Truly ingenius.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The Courts have spoken. They have stated that a weapon must be of use to the Militia to be covered by the second ( 39 ruling) the weapon must be in use, of use or previously used by the military.

Heller affirmed that the right is an individual right separate and distinct from the State right to form militias.

What these means is the supposed assault weapon is in fact clearly covered by the 2nd Amendment, which also includes at least 30 round magazines.

Any effort to ban or limit them would require an amendment. Something the gun grabbers are not willing to do cause they know they would lose.


----------



## PratchettFan

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Courts have spoken. They have stated that a weapon must be of use to the Militia to be covered by the second ( 39 ruling) the weapon must be in use, of use or previously used by the military.
> 
> Heller affirmed that the right is an individual right separate and distinct from the State right to form militias.
> 
> What these means is the supposed assault weapon is in fact clearly covered by the 2nd Amendment, which also includes at least 30 round magazines.
> 
> Any effort to ban or limit them would require an amendment. Something the gun grabbers are not willing to do cause they know they would lose.



Again, this is false on its face.  There are such bans in place and they have not been struck down by the courts.


----------



## there4eyeM

"A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason."

If the point of having the militia is to resist the central government, wouldn't that necessitate the possibility of a confrontation with the central government's troops?


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

I always find these debates so laughable.  I knew the minute I heard about the Colorado shooting that we were going to tread this well worn ground yet again.  AND the same cries from the left, would be used over and over that are always used.

Let's remember that Clinton outlawed the large magazines.  What happened?  Little shops all over the midwest went into action and although the price for them grew, you could still get large capacity magazines almost anywhere.  The bottom line:  Once again Washington twitches and expects EVERYONE to walk lock-step with their view of how the world MUST be.  The liberal/progressive view of the "masses" as sheep that must be herded.

The same will go IF an attempt is made to outlaw the so-called "assault weapons."  I have an M-4 that is in my truck on a rifle rack, just above the shotgun (870 Remington with no choke).  Underneath the seat is a Colt Double Eagle.  All three are fully loaded and are always handy.  I know people that have as many as fifty weapons, some definately "assault" weapons.  If they are outlawed, then the dealing and trading of those weapons will go underground.  Just like the trading of those large capacity magazines did previously.

Here's a clue:  I don't care what you want in New York, or Baltimore, or Los Angeles, or Chicago for that matter.  You do what ever makes your little heart warm and fuzzy (do you really expect the murder rate in Chicago to drop because you outlaw weapons?).  You want to make the private ownership of weapons against the law, you do just that.  BUT here in this area, where a man can drive for 100 miles in any direction without going through a town of more than 10,000, leave us ALONE.  We will NOT stand in line for you.  We will NOT walk to the beat of your drummer and we will not give up the rights and freedoms that our forefathers fought and died for.  Here, in this area, a gun can still be the difference between life or death.  In the 1870's it was the Colt double action Peacemaker.  Now it's the AR-15 and the M-4.  Because you progressives will NOT secure the border, now more than ever the Mexican drug cartels are moving in.  Hell, they just busted a ranch not 20 miles from mine that was harboring the brother of a Mexican drug king pin and was laundering money for the cartel.  

Liberals are so predictable and so laughable... they live in these mega cities and have no clue about how other people live in the rest of the country.


----------



## PratchettFan

there4eyeM said:


> "A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason."
> 
> If the point of having the militia is to resist the central government, wouldn't that necessitate the possibility of a confrontation with the central government's troops?



Yes.  But that is not the point of having the militia.  The point of a militia is so the federal government has the ability to call upon troops in times of war.  The states cannot, without the express permission of the Congress, even have a militia except in time of war.  While the militia is organized (thus regulated) by the state, it is in fact under the control of the federal government.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> Are you saying that if the assault weapons ban is unconstitional then nothing can be done about Assault weapons?


The OP was very clear.   Please feel free to address it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Darkwind said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to have to see the source for these claims.  I know of no SCOTUS ruling in which the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to the appropriate service in the Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Please read what I said more carefully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no militia requirement for the 2nd Amendment.
> None whatever.
Click to expand...

Not in order to exercise the right or have your right protected - correct.
The relationship to the militia comes in where the weapon is concerned.   Please re-read  the OP.


----------



## M14 Shooter

there4eyeM said:


> Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?


I'm sorry -- I dont see your response to the OP.

As for your question:  it worked for the Iraqis.


----------



## M14 Shooter

OohPooPahDoo said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCOTUS rulings that you haven't bothered to cite is what you mean.
Click to expand...


Cites:
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
McDonald v. City of Chicago : SCOTUSblog

Now that you have the cites, please feel free to actually address the OP


----------



## M14 Shooter

editec said:


> Nuclear weapons are NOT outlawed for citizens by the consitution according to many of USMB's resident constitutional scholars .
> 
> STILL, the USA continues to insist tht Iran doesn't have the right to build them.
> 
> Go figure


I must have missed your response to the OP.
Could you re-post?


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Firehorse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias are not kept in place, they are called in times of need. In the times of the founding papers, this was the case and is to this day. The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government. If the people are not already armed in such a case, you wouldn't expect the very government that the people are rising up against arming them do you?
> 
> The people need the weapons needed to throw off a government ... In today's time that means assault weapons
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right?
Click to expand...

I suggest you re-read Heller.   It addresses this at length.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> The SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons.
Click to expand...

So you agree that the 2nd prohibits the banning of 'assault weapons' and their attending magazines.
Thank you.


----------



## manifold

Academically speaking, assault weapon bans absolutely violate the 2nd Amendment.

To draw any other conclusion requires bogus inference and mad mental gymnastics.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
> It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  There are no stipulations at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but there are.  The 2nd amendment is just one sentence, but it is a complete sentence.  It does not begin after the comma.  The stipulation is the stated intent of the amendment. Which is not that you can have any weapon you want.  The intent is a well regulated militia.  You can't have a well regulated militia without the state having the power to regulate.  So while the amendment does say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it does not say the right to keep and bear any arms a given citizen wants shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

No one argues that thr 2nd protects the right to own and use ALL weapons.
The issue HERE is 'assault weapons' and the protections afforded to them by the 2nd.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

PratchettFan said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason."
> 
> If the point of having the militia is to resist the central government, wouldn't that necessitate the possibility of a confrontation with the central government's troops?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But that is not the point of having the militia.  The point of a militia is so the federal government has the ability to call upon troops in times of war.  The states cannot, without the express permission of the Congress, even have a militia except in time of war.  While the militia is organized (thus regulated) by the state, it is in fact under the control of the federal government.
Click to expand...


That is a simply not true. The States can and some do have militias. The Federal Government can call for only a portion of a States Militia. The right to have a militia is in the 2nd Amendment. The National Guard is part of the US Army. It is no militia. But if it were it is just the Federalized portion that a State may have.

Are you incapable of reading? The second conveys 2 rights. One to the State and one to the Individual. Neither right can be removed by Congress, it would require a new Amendment.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

PratchettFan said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have spoken. They have stated that a weapon must be of use to the Militia to be covered by the second ( 39 ruling) the weapon must be in use, of use or previously used by the military.
> 
> Heller affirmed that the right is an individual right separate and distinct from the State right to form militias.
> 
> What these means is the supposed assault weapon is in fact clearly covered by the 2nd Amendment, which also includes at least 30 round magazines.
> 
> Any effort to ban or limit them would require an amendment. Something the gun grabbers are not willing to do cause they know they would lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is false on its face.  There are such bans in place and they have not been struck down by the courts.
Click to expand...


No one has challenged them, until someone does they may remain but the Courts are clear what the Standard is.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that if the assault weapons ban is unconstitional then nothing can be done about Assault weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very definition of an assault weapon makes it unbannable vis a via the current Supreme Court ruling and previous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, given that they are indeed banned in many areas I would say this statement is false on its face.
Click to expand...

This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.

Do you disagree with the assertion that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd?   
Do you believe that 'assaul weapons' can be banned w/o violating the Constitution?

If so, please support your positon.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons.  However, the 2nd amendment is not just one half a sentence.  It includes regulation by the state.  So until the SC provides an opinion which states otherwise, the state has the power to regulate the type, number and frequency of your weapons purchases.  If you disagree, take it to the SC.
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulate does not mean the same as it did back then
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  If you disagree, take it to the SC.  Until then, the 1st amendment gives you the right to complain to your heart's content - while the state regulates.
Click to expand...


Here's a free lesson,  well regulated in the time of the founders, referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army.  That would be treason.
Click to expand...


America's founders were traitors. Treason would be doing something unconstitutional. Would assassinating American citizens without due process be treasonous?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

editec said:


> Nuclear weapons are NOT outlawed for citizens by the consitution according to many of USMB's resident constitutional scholars .
> 
> STILL, the USA continues to insist tht Iran doesn't have the right to build them.
> 
> Go figure



Nuclear weapons are not FIREARMS *XXXXX*.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason."
> 
> If the point of having the militia is to resist the central government, wouldn't that necessitate the possibility of a confrontation with the central government's troops?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But that is not the point of having the militia.  The point of a militia is so the federal government has the ability to call upon troops in times of war.  The states cannot, without the express permission of the Congress, even have a militia except in time of war.  While the militia is organized (thus regulated) by the state, it is in fact under the control of the federal government.
Click to expand...


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)* the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## manifold

bigrebnc1775 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons are NOT outlawed for citizens by the consitution according to many of USMB's resident constitutional scholars .
> 
> STILL, the USA continues to insist tht Iran doesn't have the right to build them.
> 
> Go figure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons are not FIREARMS dumb ass.
Click to expand...


They are ARMS though.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

manifold said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons are NOT outlawed for citizens by the consitution according to many of USMB's resident constitutional scholars .
> 
> STILL, the USA continues to insist tht Iran doesn't have the right to build them.
> 
> Go figure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons are not FIREARMS dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are ARMS though.
Click to expand...


Under 26 USCA § 861 (a), firearms is defined as "a shot gun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition." United States v. Adams, 11 F. Supp. 216, 217 (S.D. Fla. 1935)

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.


----------



## manifold

bigrebnc1775 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons are not FIREARMS dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are ARMS though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under 26 USCA § 861 (a), firearms is defined as "a shot gun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition." United States v. Adams, 11 F. Supp. 216, 217 (S.D. Fla. 1935)
> 
> U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.
Click to expand...


I understand how case law has shaped our 'interpretation' of the 2nd Amendment, and I understand why it's been allowed to happen.  But if we wiped clean the slate of case law and re-interpreted the 2nd Amendment, I'd argue that as it's currently written, any and all restrictions placed on acquisition, ownership and maintenance of arms of any kind violate the rights as enumerated therein.  Of course that will never happen, so this discussion is purely academic.  However I wish it had gone down differently.  I wish every gun law was stricken down until we all came together and rewrote the amendment.  I think that's a better process and more in line with what the FF envisioned.


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  There are no stipulations at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but there are.  The 2nd amendment is just one sentence, but it is a complete sentence.  It does not begin after the comma.  The stipulation is the stated intent of the amendment. Which is not that you can have any weapon you want.  The intent is a well regulated militia.  You can't have a well regulated militia without the state having the power to regulate.  So while the amendment does say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it does not say the right to keep and bear any arms a given citizen wants shall not be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one argues that thr 2nd protects the right to own and use ALL weapons.
> The issue HERE is 'assault weapons' and the protections afforded to them by the 2nd.
Click to expand...


I've read the 2nd amendment and can't find the words "assault weapons" in it anywhere.  There are no protections afforded to them.  Since you agree the state has the right to limit the type of arms citizens are allowed to keep, then it really is just a question of what limits the state wishes to apply.


----------



## there4eyeM

Another problem between 1790 era and today is that it required knowledge and expertise to use a firearm.
Any idiot over 11 can hold and fire an M-16 or AK. People were much more personally responsible and there were vastly fewer of them.


----------



## manifold

PratchettFan said:


> I've read the 2nd amendment and can't find the words "assault weapons" in it anywhere.  There are no protections afforded to them. * Since you agree the state has the right to limit the type of arms citizens are allowed to keep, then it really is just a question of what limits the state wishes to apply*.



I haven't been following your conversation and I don't mean to cherry pick, but the bolded portion caught my eye.

You bring up a very good point, and one that has been allowed to evolve with every restriction placed on 'arms'.  Academically speaking, once a person concedes that the 2nd Amendment does not protect nukes, they've forfeited the argument that it protects anything, specifically.  The 2nd Amendment has been completely neutered.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

manifold said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are ARMS though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under 26 USCA § 861 (a), firearms is defined as "a shot gun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition." United States v. Adams, 11 F. Supp. 216, 217 (S.D. Fla. 1935)
> 
> U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand how case law has shaped our 'interpretation' of the 2nd Amendment, and I understand why it's been allowed to happen.  But if we wiped clean the slate of case law and re-interpreted the 2nd Amendment, I'd argue that as it's currently written, any and all restrictions placed on acquisition, ownership and maintenance of arms of any kind violate the rights as enumerated therein.  Of course that will never happen, so this discussion is purely academic.  However I wish it had gone down differently.  I wish every gun law was stricken down until we all came together and rewrote the amendment.  I think that's a better process and more in line with what the FF envisioned.
Click to expand...


If we did this and if we did that and if is not a reason to change he second amendment.



> I wish every gun law was stricken down until we all came together and rewrote the amendment.  I think that's a better process and more in line with what the FF envisioned



Start with the first amendment and rewrite the whole bill of rights. kill the elections and have a dictator for life. How does that sound so far?


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> The SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that the 2nd prohibits the banning of 'assault weapons' and their attending magazines.
> Thank you.
Click to expand...


That is not what I said.  I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons.  The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind.  However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.  That falls under the power of the state created by the 2nd amendment.  Which is why they are not allowed in some jurisdictions but are allowed in others.


----------



## manifold

bigrebnc1775 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under 26 USCA § 861 (a), firearms is defined as "a shot gun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition." United States v. Adams, 11 F. Supp. 216, 217 (S.D. Fla. 1935)
> 
> U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand how case law has shaped our 'interpretation' of the 2nd Amendment, and I understand why it's been allowed to happen.  But if we wiped clean the slate of case law and re-interpreted the 2nd Amendment, I'd argue that as it's currently written, any and all restrictions placed on acquisition, ownership and maintenance of arms of any kind violate the rights as enumerated therein.  Of course that will never happen, so this discussion is purely academic.  However I wish it had gone down differently.  I wish every gun law was stricken down until we all came together and rewrote the amendment.  I think that's a better process and more in line with what the FF envisioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we did this and if we did that and if is not a reason to change he second amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish every gun law was stricken down until we all came together and rewrote the amendment.  I think that's a better process and more in line with what the FF envisioned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with the first amendment and rewrite the whole bill of rights. kill the elections and have a dictator for life. How does that sound so far?
Click to expand...


Honestly, it sounds like underdeveloped hyperbole.

I look forward to reading you expound on it some more.


----------



## PratchettFan

manifold said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the 2nd amendment and can't find the words "assault weapons" in it anywhere.  There are no protections afforded to them. * Since you agree the state has the right to limit the type of arms citizens are allowed to keep, then it really is just a question of what limits the state wishes to apply*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following your conversation and I don't mean to cherry pick, but the bolded portion caught my eye.
> 
> You bring up a very good point, and one that has been allowed to evolve with every restriction placed on 'arms'.  Academically speaking, once a person concedes that the 2nd Amendment does not protect nukes, they've forfeited the argument that it protects anything, specifically.  The 2nd Amendment has been completely neutered.
Click to expand...


You could argue that.  You could also argue that since I can't store several tons of land mines in my garage 10 feet from your children's bedroom that it has been neutered.  I would counter that this is clearly not the case.  There is a balance between individual rights and societal rights.  The trick is not to go too far in one direction.  That is why we have courts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

manifold said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand how case law has shaped our 'interpretation' of the 2nd Amendment, and I understand why it's been allowed to happen.  But if we wiped clean the slate of case law and re-interpreted the 2nd Amendment, I'd argue that as it's currently written, any and all restrictions placed on acquisition, ownership and maintenance of arms of any kind violate the rights as enumerated therein.  Of course that will never happen, so this discussion is purely academic.  However I wish it had gone down differently.  I wish every gun law was stricken down until we all came together and rewrote the amendment.  I think that's a better process and more in line with what the FF envisioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we did this and if we did that and if is not a reason to change he second amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish every gun law was stricken down until we all came together and rewrote the amendment.  I think that's a better process and more in line with what the FF envisioned
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with the first amendment and rewrite the whole bill of rights. kill the elections and have a dictator for life. How does that sound so far?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, it sounds like underdeveloped hyperbole.
> 
> I look forward to reading you expound on it some more.
Click to expand...


You want to rewrite one amendment why stop their?


----------



## PratchettFan

RetiredGySgt said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason."
> 
> If the point of having the militia is to resist the central government, wouldn't that necessitate the possibility of a confrontation with the central government's troops?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But that is not the point of having the militia.  The point of a militia is so the federal government has the ability to call upon troops in times of war.  The states cannot, without the express permission of the Congress, even have a militia except in time of war.  While the militia is organized (thus regulated) by the state, it is in fact under the control of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a simply not true. The States can and some do have militias. The Federal Government can call for only a portion of a States Militia. The right to have a militia is in the 2nd Amendment. The National Guard is part of the US Army. It is no militia. But if it were it is just the Federalized portion that a State may have.
> 
> Are you incapable of reading? The second conveys 2 rights. One to the State and one to the Individual. Neither right can be removed by Congress, it would require a new Amendment.
Click to expand...


I suggest you read the Constitution.  Specifically, Article I sections 8 and 10.  You are misinformed.


----------



## there4eyeM

"kill the elections and have a dictator for life. How does that sound so far?"

Sounds not a whole lot different from what has been going on for quite a while.


----------



## PratchettFan

RetiredGySgt said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have spoken. They have stated that a weapon must be of use to the Militia to be covered by the second ( 39 ruling) the weapon must be in use, of use or previously used by the military.
> 
> Heller affirmed that the right is an individual right separate and distinct from the State right to form militias.
> 
> What these means is the supposed assault weapon is in fact clearly covered by the 2nd Amendment, which also includes at least 30 round magazines.
> 
> Any effort to ban or limit them would require an amendment. Something the gun grabbers are not willing to do cause they know they would lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is false on its face.  There are such bans in place and they have not been struck down by the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has challenged them, until someone does they may remain but the Courts are clear what the Standard is.
Click to expand...


Yes.  The courts have been quite clear.  Which is why your statement was false.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But that is not the point of having the militia.  The point of a militia is so the federal government has the ability to call upon troops in times of war.  The states cannot, without the express permission of the Congress, even have a militia except in time of war.  While the militia is organized (thus regulated) by the state, it is in fact under the control of the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a simply not true. The States can and some do have militias. The Federal Government can call for only a portion of a States Militia. The right to have a militia is in the 2nd Amendment. The National Guard is part of the US Army. It is no militia. But if it were it is just the Federalized portion that a State may have.
> 
> Are you incapable of reading? The second conveys 2 rights. One to the State and one to the Individual. Neither right can be removed by Congress, it would require a new Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you read the Constitution.  Specifically, Article I sections 8 and 10.  You are misinformed.
Click to expand...

10 USC § 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## manifold

PratchettFan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the 2nd amendment and can't find the words "assault weapons" in it anywhere.  There are no protections afforded to them. * Since you agree the state has the right to limit the type of arms citizens are allowed to keep, then it really is just a question of what limits the state wishes to apply*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following your conversation and I don't mean to cherry pick, but the bolded portion caught my eye.
> 
> You bring up a very good point, and one that has been allowed to evolve with every restriction placed on 'arms'.  Academically speaking, once a person concedes that the 2nd Amendment does not protect nukes, they've forfeited the argument that it protects anything, specifically.  The 2nd Amendment has been completely neutered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could argue that.  You could also argue that since I can't store several tons of land mines in my garage 10 feet from your children's bedroom that it has been neutered.  I would counter that this is clearly not the case.  There is a balance between individual rights and societal rights.  The trick is not to go too far in one direction.  That is why we have courts.
Click to expand...


The courts are a much more efficient path to change, that I'll concede freely.  But when it comes to potentially undermining any of the Bill of Rights, I prefer the more formal process, where everybody has an opportunity to participate.  Perhaps the term 'neutered' was a bit hyperbolic in practical terms, since people are still allowed to own 'some' arms, but ample precedent is now on the books that laws can be enforced that unquestioningly restrict the 'right to bear arms'.  Now it's only a matter of time before hyperbole turns into reality.  If you have a problem with that, I suggest you arm yourself.


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very definition of an assault weapon makes it unbannable vis a via the current Supreme Court ruling and previous ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, given that they are indeed banned in many areas I would say this statement is false on its face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree with the assertion that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd?
> Do you believe that 'assaul weapons' can be banned w/o violating the Constitution?
> 
> If so, please support your positon.
Click to expand...


Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution.  They are being banned without violating the Constitution.  This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please.  It is to support a well regulated militia.  Well regulated.  Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government.  You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate.  Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.


----------



## manifold

bigrebnc1775 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we did this and if we did that and if is not a reason to change he second amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Start with the first amendment and rewrite the whole bill of rights. kill the elections and have a dictator for life. How does that sound so far?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, it sounds like underdeveloped hyperbole.
> 
> I look forward to reading you expound on it some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want to rewrite one amendment why stop their?
Click to expand...


If you have ideas about other amendments you think might be explicitly deficient, I'd love to hear them, but that's probably best saved for another thread.  Regarding the topic of this thread, yes, I'd rather see the 2nd Amendment rewritten than largely disregarded, as it currently stands.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, given that they are indeed banned in many areas I would say this statement is false on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree with the assertion that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd?
> Do you believe that 'assaul weapons' can be banned w/o violating the Constitution?
> 
> If so, please support your positon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution.  They are being banned without violating the Constitution.  This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please.  It is to support a well regulated militia.  Well regulated.  Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government.  You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate.  Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.
Click to expand...


The courts have ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of suitable military use.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word regulate does not mean the same as it did back then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  If you disagree, take it to the SC.  Until then, the 1st amendment gives you the right to complain to your heart's content - while the state regulates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson,  well regulated in the time of the founders, referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Click to expand...


Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

manifold said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, it sounds like underdeveloped hyperbole.
> 
> I look forward to reading you expound on it some more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to rewrite one amendment why stop their?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have ideas about other amendments you think might be explicitly deficient, I'd love to hear them, but that's probably best saved for another thread.  Regarding the topic of this thread, yes, I'd rather see the 2nd Amendment rewritten than largely disregarded, as it currently stands.
Click to expand...


I'm an all or nothing guy, you rewrite one you rewrite them all.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army.  That would be treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America's founders were traitors. Treason would be doing something unconstitutional. Would assassinating American citizens without due process be treasonous?
Click to expand...


<sigh>  Is it really so difficult for Americans who talk so much about staying within the Constitution to actually take a little time to read it?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  If you disagree, take it to the SC.  Until then, the 1st amendment gives you the right to complain to your heart's content - while the state regulates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson,  well regulated in the time of the founders, referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.
Click to expand...


The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.

The second amendment does not say

A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says 

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

The founders did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons are NOT outlawed for citizens by the consitution according to many of USMB's resident constitutional scholars .
> 
> STILL, the USA continues to insist tht Iran doesn't have the right to build them.
> 
> Go figure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons are not FIREARMS *XXXXX*.
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment does not mention FIREARMS.


----------



## manifold

bigrebnc1775 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want to rewrite one amendment why stop their?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have ideas about other amendments you think might be explicitly deficient, I'd love to hear them, but that's probably best saved for another thread.  Regarding the topic of this thread, yes, I'd rather see the 2nd Amendment rewritten than largely disregarded, as it currently stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an all or nothing guy, you *rewrite* one you rewrite them all.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if you're aware of the several amendments that have been added, and some rewritten, since The Constitution was originally ratified.  This might come as a surprise to you, but they don't all get rewritten every time.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason."
> 
> If the point of having the militia is to resist the central government, wouldn't that necessitate the possibility of a confrontation with the central government's troops?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But that is not the point of having the militia.  The point of a militia is so the federal government has the ability to call upon troops in times of war.  The states cannot, without the express permission of the Congress, even have a militia except in time of war.  While the militia is organized (thus regulated) by the state, it is in fact under the control of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)* the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


Thank you.  So you agree the militia is controlled by the federal government.  Now, read the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army.  That would be treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America's founders were traitors. Treason would be doing something unconstitutional. Would assassinating American citizens without due process be treasonous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> <sigh>  Is it really so difficult for Americans who talk so much about staying within the Constitution to actually take a little time to read it?
Click to expand...


1. The founders were traitors
2. treason would be doing something unconstitutional
3. would depriving a citizen of his due process be treasonous?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But that is not the point of having the militia.  The point of a militia is so the federal government has the ability to call upon troops in times of war.  The states cannot, without the express permission of the Congress, even have a militia except in time of war.  While the militia is organized (thus regulated) by the state, it is in fact under the control of the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)* the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  So you agree the militia is controlled by the federal government.  Now, read the Constitution.
Click to expand...


(2)* the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*


----------



## PratchettFan

manifold said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following your conversation and I don't mean to cherry pick, but the bolded portion caught my eye.
> 
> You bring up a very good point, and one that has been allowed to evolve with every restriction placed on 'arms'.  Academically speaking, once a person concedes that the 2nd Amendment does not protect nukes, they've forfeited the argument that it protects anything, specifically.  The 2nd Amendment has been completely neutered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could argue that.  You could also argue that since I can't store several tons of land mines in my garage 10 feet from your children's bedroom that it has been neutered.  I would counter that this is clearly not the case.  There is a balance between individual rights and societal rights.  The trick is not to go too far in one direction.  That is why we have courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts are a much more efficient path to change, that I'll concede freely.  But when it comes to potentially undermining any of the Bill of Rights, I prefer the more formal process, where everybody has an opportunity to participate.  Perhaps the term 'neutered' was a bit hyperbolic in practical terms, since people are still allowed to own 'some' arms, but ample precedent is now on the books that laws can be enforced that unquestioningly restrict the 'right to bear arms'.  Now it's only a matter of time before hyperbole turns into reality.  If you have a problem with that, I suggest you arm yourself.
Click to expand...


Of course laws can be enforced which restrict the right to bear arms.  One would have to be insane to desire otherwise.  Do you want your neighbor mixing up a batch of ebola virus because it can be defined as "arms"?  There is no such thing as an unrestricted right and there should not be.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> (2)* the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  So you agree the militia is controlled by the federal government.  Now, read the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (2)* the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
Click to expand...


As established under federal law.  That is what you were quoting, federal law.  What part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?  Have you read the Constitution yet?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

manifold said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have ideas about other amendments you think might be explicitly deficient, I'd love to hear them, but that's probably best saved for another thread.  Regarding the topic of this thread, yes, I'd rather see the 2nd Amendment rewritten than largely disregarded, as it currently stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an all or nothing guy, you *rewrite* one you rewrite them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you're aware of the several amendments that have been added, and some rewritten, since The Constitution was originally ratified.  This might come as a surprise to you, but they don't all get rewritten every time.
Click to expand...


Yes I am aware of that, but I don't recall of an amendment being rewritten in my life time.
If you touch the second might as well do the rest.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's founders were traitors. Treason would be doing something unconstitutional. Would assassinating American citizens without due process be treasonous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <sigh>  Is it really so difficult for Americans who talk so much about staying within the Constitution to actually take a little time to read it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. The founders were traitors
> 2. treason would be doing something unconstitutional
> 3. would depriving a citizen of his due process be treasonous?
Click to expand...


Treason is defined by the Constituion.  Read the Constituion.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree with the assertion that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd?
> Do you believe that 'assaul weapons' can be banned w/o violating the Constitution?
> 
> If so, please support your positon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution.  They are being banned without violating the Constitution.  This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please.  It is to support a well regulated militia.  Well regulated.  Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government.  You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate.  Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts have ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of suitable military use.
Click to expand...


Which is why a sawed off shotgun was not protected.  Now, show me where in that opinion did it say the government cannot limit what kind of weapons you keep?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  So you agree the militia is controlled by the federal government.  Now, read the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2)* the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As established under federal law.  That is what you were quoting, federal law.  What part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?  Have you read the Constitution yet?
Click to expand...


Yes I am quoting federal law that say the unorganized militia consist of people who are not connected with the National Guard and the Naval Militia


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution.  They are being banned without violating the Constitution.  This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please.  It is to support a well regulated militia.  Well regulated.  Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government.  You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate.  Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts have ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of suitable military use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why a sawed off shotgun was not protected.  Now, show me where in that opinion did it say the government cannot limit what kind of weapons you keep?
Click to expand...


It's quite clear when the ruling states of suitable military use. Do you understand what that means?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> <sigh>  Is it really so difficult for Americans who talk so much about staying within the Constitution to actually take a little time to read it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The founders were traitors
> 2. treason would be doing something unconstitutional
> 3. would depriving a citizen of his due process be treasonous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Treason is defined by the Constituion.  Read the Constituion.
Click to expand...


I suggest you do the same. Read it  before you try to have it rewritten.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson,  well regulated in the time of the founders, referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.
> 
> The second amendment does not say
> 
> A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> It says
> 
> 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
> 
> The founders did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.
Click to expand...


So, either you won't read the Constitution or you did and didn't like what you read.  No worries.  In this country you are free to be as wrong as you like.  But I will do you a favor, just in case it is simple laziness...

Article I (Legislative Powers)  Section 8  

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article I  Section 10

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Now seriously, what part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The founders were traitors
> 2. treason would be doing something unconstitutional
> 3. would depriving a citizen of his due process be treasonous?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is defined by the Constituion.  Read the Constituion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you do the same. Read it  before you try to have it rewritten.
Click to expand...


Ok, since you apparently won't or won't admit that you have:  

Article III  Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.
> 
> The second amendment does not say
> 
> A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> It says
> 
> 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
> 
> The founders did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, either you won't read the Constitution or you did and didn't like what you read.  No worries.  In this country you are free to be as wrong as you like.  But I will do you a favor, just in case it is simple laziness...
> 
> Article I (Legislative Powers)  Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Article I  Section 10
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> 
> Now seriously, what part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?
Click to expand...


I have read the constitution, I doubt you have. Do you also notice the federal government was supposed to go to the states to call up the militia if needed, not have a standing army and a militia.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts have ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of suitable military use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why a sawed off shotgun was not protected.  Now, show me where in that opinion did it say the government cannot limit what kind of weapons you keep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's quite clear when the ruling states of suitable military use. Do you understand what that means?
Click to expand...


Yes, I do.  Apparently, you don't.  However, since you are not a judge that is not a problem.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Treason is defined by the Constituion.  Read the Constituion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you do the same. Read it  before you try to have it rewritten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, since you apparently won't or won't admit that you have:
> 
> Article III  Section 3
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Click to expand...


American military Action in Libya.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SayMyName said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SayMyName said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for can assault weapons be banned...I believe that recently one of the more conservative Supreme Court justices has opened the door to this matter.
> 
> Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you didn't actually listen to what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I listened to it very well. It is also in his latest book. Read the article below the video in which Scalia says that there were torts in existance at the time of the Bill of Rights being written that prevented "horrible" weapons from being carried about town, such as maces, executioner axes, etc., that would frighten people.
> 
> And before you go off...I am a 2nd Admendment supporter.
Click to expand...


What he essentially said is that, as far as he is concerned, you can own any weapon you can carry. He did speculate that it might be permissible for the government to regulate shoulder launched missiles, and that we would have to see what those restrictions are. He is talking from a hypothetical point of view, which is a very scholarly way of saying he doesn't want to actually tell you what his thoughts are. I have seem both supporters and opponents of the 2nd try to argue that he is both for, and against, restrictions, based on nothing more than what they were feeling when they heard his words.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why a sawed off shotgun was not protected.  Now, show me where in that opinion did it say the government cannot limit what kind of weapons you keep?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite clear when the ruling states of suitable military use. Do you understand what that means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I do.  Apparently, you don't.  However, since you are not a judge that is not a problem.
Click to expand...


Yes you do what? Not understand what the courts have ruled that weapons had to be of military use to be protected by the second amendment?


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.
> 
> The second amendment does not say
> 
> A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> It says
> 
> 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
> 
> The founders did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, either you won't read the Constitution or you did and didn't like what you read.  No worries.  In this country you are free to be as wrong as you like.  But I will do you a favor, just in case it is simple laziness...
> 
> Article I (Legislative Powers)  Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Article I  Section 10
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> 
> Now seriously, what part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read the constitution, I doubt you have. Do you also notice the federal government was supposed to go to the states to call up the militia if needed, not have a standing army and a militia.
Click to expand...


Yes.  I'm the one quoting the Constituiton but you are the one who has read it.  You know, ignorance is curable - but you have to want to be cured.

Article I  Section 8 - continued.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Congress can't have a standing army and call on the militia.  Nowhere.

The militia is organized by the state.  However, it is under the command and beck and call of the federal government.  That is how the founding fathers set it up.  If you have a problem with that, you should take it up with them.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite clear when the ruling states of suitable military use. Do you understand what that means?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do.  Apparently, you don't.  However, since you are not a judge that is not a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you do what? Not understand what the courts have ruled that weapons had to be of military use to be protected by the second amendment?
Click to expand...


Yes, I do.  You don't.  You are in error.  Incorrect.  Wrong.  Off base.  I'm not sure how else to put it to you.  You haven't got the foggiest idea what that decision was about.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you do the same. Read it  before you try to have it rewritten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, since you apparently won't or won't admit that you have:
> 
> Article III  Section 3
> 
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> 
> The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American military Action in Libya.
Click to expand...


Uh huh.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the point, though, is it? the second amendment says "shall not be infringed."
> It does not say, "shall not be infringed except for scary looking guns"
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  There are no stipulations at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, but there are.  The 2nd amendment is just one sentence, but it is a complete sentence.  It does not begin after the comma.  The stipulation is the stated intent of the amendment. Which is not that you can have any weapon you want.  The intent is a well regulated militia.  You can't have a well regulated militia without the state having the power to regulate.  So while the amendment does say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it does not say the right to keep and bear any arms a given citizen wants shall not be infringed.
> 
> If you wish to invoke the 2nd amendment, invoke it all.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more. Tell me something, if you actually believe that, why do you ignore the purpose of the militia? These weapons are intended to defend the state against aggression, yet people want to insist that no one ever needs more than 10 bullets, and that it is unreasonable for a person to want to own more than one weapon. Then there are others that think the state should be able to insist that everyone demonstrate a need for a weapon which is clearly intended to be part of the common defense. Then we have people like you that insist that some weapons are acceptable for some people, but not for others.

All of you are actually ignoring the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and the fact that it clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A militia is not regulated by government telling people that they have to keep their guns in a locked box and their ammunition in a separate locked box, it is regulated by the fact that it responds to the orders of the government. It is available to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. 

Please note that the Constitution puts the militia under the control of the federal government. That means that, even if your position is correct, and that the government can regulate what weapons the militia carries, it is up to Congress, not the states, or cities.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army.  That would be treason.
Click to expand...


No it would not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

candycorn said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right? After all, you said the reason for a militia in the first place is "The reason militias are required is to enable the people to rise up against its own government."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respective State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't that what the national guards are; the state "militias"?
Click to expand...


Umm, no. The militia is actually defined in the US Code Section 311 as being every man under 45 and every woman who is a member of the National Guard.

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute


----------



## RetiredGySgt

manifold said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have ideas about other amendments you think might be explicitly deficient, I'd love to hear them, but that's probably best saved for another thread.  Regarding the topic of this thread, yes, I'd rather see the 2nd Amendment rewritten than largely disregarded, as it currently stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an all or nothing guy, you *rewrite* one you rewrite them all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if you're aware of the several amendments that have been added, and some rewritten, since The Constitution was originally ratified.  This might come as a surprise to you, but they don't all get rewritten every time.
Click to expand...


Gio ahead rewrite the 2nd and then get it past 37 States. I notice no one actually wants to do that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have spoken. They have stated that a weapon must be of use to the Militia to be covered by the second ( 39 ruling) the weapon must be in use, of use or previously used by the military.
> 
> Heller affirmed that the right is an individual right separate and distinct from the State right to form militias.
> 
> What these means is the supposed assault weapon is in fact clearly covered by the 2nd Amendment, which also includes at least 30 round magazines.
> 
> Any effort to ban or limit them would require an amendment. Something the gun grabbers are not willing to do cause they know they would lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is false on its face.  There are such bans in place and they have not been struck down by the courts.
Click to expand...


The fact that the bans exist does not make him wrong, it just means no one has actually challenged the ban, usually because it is not enforced. The assault weapons ban in California has just reached the federal court system, and will almost certainly be overturned since it clearly conflicts with Heller.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution.  They are being banned without violating the Constitution.  This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please.  It is to support a well regulated militia.  Well regulated.  Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government.  You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate.  Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts have ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of suitable military use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why a sawed off shotgun was not protected.  Now, show me where in that opinion did it say the government cannot limit what kind of weapons you keep?
Click to expand...


You are ignoring facts. The fact is the Supreme Court stated for the record in several rulings that a weapon is protected if it is of use by the militia. Meaning in use by the military, of use by the military or previously in use by the military. 

The State can regulate a MILITIA all it wants, by determining who can join, what status they have and what weapons to bring. They can not however regulate the protected weapons per the FEDERAL Constitution. You see Federal trumps State.

The reality is that any State that currently bans supposed assault rifles is in violation of the US Constitution. The problem is no one with standing has chosen to challenge those States. Until someone does the laws will remain on the books. That is how our system works. My State does not ban them so I can not challenge another States laws unless I move there or they effect me personally. Believe me if I lived in California or Massachusetts I would challenge the law after the current Supreme Court ruling affirming it is a personal individual right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason."
> 
> If the point of having the militia is to resist the central government, wouldn't that necessitate the possibility of a confrontation with the central government's troops?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But that is not the point of having the militia.  The point of a militia is so the federal government has the ability to call upon troops in times of war.  The states cannot, without the express permission of the Congress, even have a militia except in time of war.  While the militia is organized (thus regulated) by the state, it is in fact under the control of the federal government.
Click to expand...


That is simply not true.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

manifold said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons are NOT outlawed for citizens by the consitution according to many of USMB's resident constitutional scholars .
> 
> STILL, the USA continues to insist tht Iran doesn't have the right to build them.
> 
> Go figure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear weapons are not FIREARMS dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are ARMS though.
Click to expand...


Despite the rumored existence of backpack nukes you cannot bear, ie carry, a nuclear missile.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.
> 
> The second amendment does not say
> 
> A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> It says
> 
> 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
> 
> The founders did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, either you won't read the Constitution or you did and didn't like what you read.  No worries.  In this country you are free to be as wrong as you like.  But I will do you a favor, just in case it is simple laziness...
> 
> Article I (Legislative Powers)  Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Article I  Section 10
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> 
> Now seriously, what part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?
Click to expand...


Militia are not troops when not called up. They are MILITIA. Further the Federal Government can not call up all of a States militia. But that part they do call up they have to pay and arm. Leaving them to be trained by the States and officer-ed by the States. A militia not called to duty is not standing troops, that would be WHY every State before the Civil war and after had several militias.

You are aware that the National Guard units were State militias in being before being designated National Guard? You are aware that several States have independent militias separate from the National Guard? That the 2nd Amendment confers a right to the States and to the Individual?

Further the Constitution does not say the Federal Government controls all militia. It clearly states it only controls those elements called to duty by the Federal Government, since the 1880's early 1890's that has been the National Guard.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

manifold said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the 2nd amendment and can't find the words "assault weapons" in it anywhere.  There are no protections afforded to them. * Since you agree the state has the right to limit the type of arms citizens are allowed to keep, then it really is just a question of what limits the state wishes to apply*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following your conversation and I don't mean to cherry pick, but the bolded portion caught my eye.
> 
> You bring up a very good point, and one that has been allowed to evolve with every restriction placed on 'arms'.  Academically speaking, once a person concedes that the 2nd Amendment does not protect nukes, they've forfeited the argument that it protects anything, specifically.  The 2nd Amendment has been completely neutered.
Click to expand...


The 2nd clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That, despite what you see in the movies, means that nuclear weapons are not covered because no one can actually carry one.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but there are.  The 2nd amendment is just one sentence, but it is a complete sentence.  It does not begin after the comma.  The stipulation is the stated intent of the amendment. Which is not that you can have any weapon you want.  The intent is a well regulated militia.  You can't have a well regulated militia without the state having the power to regulate.  So while the amendment does say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it does not say the right to keep and bear any arms a given citizen wants shall not be infringed.
> 
> 
> 
> No one argues that thr 2nd protects the right to own and use ALL weapons.
> The issue HERE is 'assault weapons' and the protections afforded to them by the 2nd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've read the 2nd amendment and can't find the words "assault weapons" in it anywhere.  There are no protections afforded to them.
Click to expand...

Please show that 'assault weapons' do not fall under 'arms'.
Be sure to cite the relevant court cases that support your position.



> Since you agree the state has the right to limit the type of arms citizens are allowed to keep,


Um....  you'll have to quote me on this.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, given that they are indeed banned in many areas I would say this statement is false on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree with the assertion that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd?
> Do you believe that 'assaul weapons' can be banned w/o violating the Constitution?
> 
> If so, please support your positon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution.  They are being banned without violating the Constitution.  This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please.  It is to support a well regulated militia.  Well regulated.  Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government.  You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate.  Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.
Click to expand...

*
Logical fallacy alert, circular reasoning.*

The fact that they are being banned does not mean the bans do not violate the constitution.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that the 2nd prohibits the banning of 'assault weapons' and their attending magazines.
> Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not what I said.  I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons.  The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind.  However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
Click to expand...

According to whom?


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, given that they are indeed banned in many areas I would say this statement is false on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree with the assertion that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd?
> Do you believe that 'assaul weapons' can be banned w/o violating the Constitution?
> 
> If so, please support your positon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution.  They are being banned without violating the Constitution.  This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please.  It is to support a well regulated militia.  Well regulated.  Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government.  You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate.  Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.
Click to expand...

Ah.  I thought you were going to respond with someting that reflects current jurispridence.  It appears I was wrong.

Thank you for your opinion, even though it is devoid of fact.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does.  If you disagree, take it to the SC.  Until then, the 1st amendment gives you the right to complain to your heart's content - while the state regulates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson,  well regulated in the time of the founders, referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.
Click to expand...


The only place the phrase well regulated appears in the entire Constitution of the United States of America is in the 2nd Amendment. I am 100% positive those 27 words do not define well regulated, so I would love to know which part of the Constitution you have access to that no one else has ever seen.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could argue that.  You could also argue that since I can't store several tons of land mines in my garage 10 feet from your children's bedroom that it has been neutered.  I would counter that this is clearly not the case.  There is a balance between individual rights and societal rights.  The trick is not to go too far in one direction.  That is why we have courts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts are a much more efficient path to change, that I'll concede freely.  But when it comes to potentially undermining any of the Bill of Rights, I prefer the more formal process, where everybody has an opportunity to participate.  Perhaps the term 'neutered' was a bit hyperbolic in practical terms, since people are still allowed to own 'some' arms, but ample precedent is now on the books that laws can be enforced that unquestioningly restrict the 'right to bear arms'.  Now it's only a matter of time before hyperbole turns into reality.  If you have a problem with that, I suggest you arm yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course laws can be enforced which restrict the right to bear arms.  One would have to be insane to desire otherwise.  Do you want your neighbor mixing up a batch of ebola virus because it can be defined as "arms"?  There is no such thing as an unrestricted right and there should not be.
Click to expand...


How does the government stop people from mixing up batches of Ebola? Do they have a magical virus detector that can tell when anyone finds something deadly?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, given that they are indeed banned in many areas I would say this statement is false on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree with the assertion that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd?
> Do you believe that 'assaul weapons' can be banned w/o violating the Constitution?
> 
> If so, please support your positon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution.  They are being banned without violating the Constitution.  This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please.  It is to support a well regulated militia.  Well regulated.  Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government.  You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate.  Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.
Click to expand...


You are confusing the 21st century word well regulate, government control 
With the 18th century word well regulate to be as expected in working order 
Please try and keep up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.
> 
> The second amendment does not say
> 
> A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> It says
> 
> 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
> 
> The founders did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, either you won't read the Constitution or you did and didn't like what you read.  No worries.  In this country you are free to be as wrong as you like.  But I will do you a favor, just in case it is simple laziness...
> 
> Article I (Legislative Powers)  Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Article I  Section 10
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> 
> Now seriously, what part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?
Click to expand...


Where, exactly, does that say that militias are banned? Do you know what the term "Keep troops" means?


----------



## Vidi

Darkwind said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the Constitution is a "living" document, which means it can be changed.
> 
> Also, do we really think the Founders envisioned a day when someone could walk into a theatre and kill or wound 71 people?  What was it 1825 before we had a mulitshot revolver? I know the Colt wasnt until 1835. Gatling gun was 1862 nearly 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. The Founders were great men, but they were clairvoyant.
> 
> The idea that their 17th century solutions could be applied to ALL future problems is just...well...a bit misguided, isnt it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the government wants to explore regulatory roadblocks as an option to limit the number of these weapons in public hands, it would likely take a constitutional amendment to repeal or rewrite the 2nd amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A constitutional amendment limiting the rights of the 2nd Amendment is not likely to pass.
> 
> The Constitution is NOT a living document.
Click to expand...




Of coruse it is. Thats what the Amendment process is all about.

If it WASNT a living document. Prohibition would still exist.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink

Vidi said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the government wants to explore regulatory roadblocks as an option to limit the number of these weapons in public hands, it would likely take a constitutional amendment to repeal or rewrite the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> A constitutional amendment limiting the rights of the 2nd Amendment is not likely to pass.
> 
> The Constitution is NOT a living document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of coruse it is. Thats what the Amendment process is all about.
> 
> If it WASNT a living document. Prohibition would still exist.
Click to expand...


Right. 

I really do think the framers wrote Artcile V for reasons JUST EXACTLY like this one here.


----------



## Two Thumbs

M14 Shooter said:


> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.



Any restriction on any arms is unconstitutional.

but we no longer have the right to bear arms, we are 'left' with the privileged to own certain handguns and approved ammo only.

Anyone that claims we have the right to bear arms is lying or kidding themselves.


----------



## FA_Q2

Two Thumbs said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any restriction on any arms is unconstitutional.
> 
> but we no longer have the right to bear arms, we are 'left' with the privileged to own certain handguns and approved ammo only.
> 
> Anyone that claims we have the right to bear arms is lying or kidding themselves.
Click to expand...

I would not go that far.  I know a few people that could fight their own wars with all the ordinance they LEGALLY own.  Sure, the rit has been badly abridged by the government, like many of our other rights, but it is not nonexistent.  You would also be supposed what you can own when you get away from the population centers and move to BFE.


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> The courts are a much more efficient path to change, that I'll concede freely.  But when it comes to potentially undermining any of the Bill of Rights, I prefer the more formal process, where everybody has an opportunity to participate.  Perhaps the term 'neutered' was a bit hyperbolic in practical terms, since people are still allowed to own 'some' arms, but ample precedent is now on the books that laws can be enforced that unquestioningly restrict the 'right to bear arms'.  Now it's only a matter of time before hyperbole turns into reality.  If you have a problem with that, I suggest you arm yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course laws can be enforced which restrict the right to bear arms.  One would have to be insane to desire otherwise.  Do you want your neighbor mixing up a batch of ebola virus because it can be defined as "arms"?  There is no such thing as an unrestricted right and there should not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does the government stop people from mixing up batches of Ebola? Do they have a magical virus detector that can tell when anyone finds something deadly?
Click to expand...


How does the government prevent people from committing pre-meditated murder?  Are you suggesting that if we can't prevent a crime from happening we should just make it legal?

It's against the law to mix up the virus.  Do you actually want to change that?


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.
> 
> The second amendment does not say
> 
> A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> It says
> 
> 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
> 
> The founders did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, either you won't read the Constitution or you did and didn't like what you read.  No worries.  In this country you are free to be as wrong as you like.  But I will do you a favor, just in case it is simple laziness...
> 
> Article I (Legislative Powers)  Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Article I  Section 10
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> 
> Now seriously, what part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where, exactly, does that say that militias are banned? Do you know what the term "Keep troops" means?
Click to expand...


Where, exactly, did I say militias were banned?

Please tell me what "keep troops" means.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree with the assertion that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd?
> Do you believe that 'assaul weapons' can be banned w/o violating the Constitution?
> 
> If so, please support your positon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution.  They are being banned without violating the Constitution.  This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please.  It is to support a well regulated militia.  Well regulated.  Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government.  You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate.  Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing the 21st century word well regulate, government control
> With the 18th century word well regulate to be as expected in working order
> Please try and keep up.
Click to expand...


If it pleases you to just make the stuff up, you have that right.  I think we have covered that before.


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right.  There are no stipulations at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but there are.  The 2nd amendment is just one sentence, but it is a complete sentence.  It does not begin after the comma.  The stipulation is the stated intent of the amendment. Which is not that you can have any weapon you want.  The intent is a well regulated militia.  You can't have a well regulated militia without the state having the power to regulate.  So while the amendment does say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it does not say the right to keep and bear any arms a given citizen wants shall not be infringed.
> 
> If you wish to invoke the 2nd amendment, invoke it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more. Tell me something, if you actually believe that, why do you ignore the purpose of the militia? These weapons are intended to defend the state against aggression, yet people want to insist that no one ever needs more than 10 bullets, and that it is unreasonable for a person to want to own more than one weapon. Then there are others that think the state should be able to insist that everyone demonstrate a need for a weapon which is clearly intended to be part of the common defense. Then we have people like you that insist that some weapons are acceptable for some people, but not for others.
> 
> All of you are actually ignoring the intent of the 2nd Amendment, and the fact that it clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A militia is not regulated by government telling people that they have to keep their guns in a locked box and their ammunition in a separate locked box, it is regulated by the fact that it responds to the orders of the government. It is available to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
> 
> Please note that the Constitution puts the militia under the control of the federal government. That means that, even if your position is correct, and that the government can regulate what weapons the militia carries, it is up to Congress, not the states, or cities.
Click to expand...


There is another thread going that put forth the idea that we either have a strict interpretation of the Constitution or we just toss it out - and that is a simple question.  I think this thread clearly demonstrates that there is no such thing as a "strict interpretation" and no question involving the Constitution is ever simple.

I am not saying weapons are acceptable for some and not for others.  Please don't put words in my mouth.  I think there are weapons which clearly should not be available to the general public at all.  I don't think Bill Gates should have his own sub fully armed with ICBMs with nuclear warheads.  I think that is a bad idea.  The 2nd amendment refers to "arms", not "firearms" or "guns".  

If someone wants a .50 sniper rifle, I have no problem with them having it.  Full auto heavy machine guns, go for it.  Personally, I think the number of people out there who would actually cause any problems with those weapons is very small and I am willing to accept that risk.  How many people can someone with a BAR take out before getting killed?  50 or 60 maybe.  There are 300 million of us and I will take those odds.  But I am just me.  If the state - not me - decides that such weapons are not acceptable then they have the authority to restrict them or even ban them.  So long as it is not an across the board ban on all weapons.  The SC has made that clear.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is a well regulated militia.  The only reason citizens have the right to keep and bear arms is to support a militia.  Arguably, the nature of the militia has change but the 2nd amendment has not.  But a militia is not, as some people think, a machine.  You don't calibrate it.  A militia is a group of citizens and thus regulating a militia means regulating citizens.  The state has the authority to regulate and the SC has never issued a single decision which indicates it does not have the authority.

Some states are going to regulate more than other states.  That is the nature of state's rights.


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly, though, how many people seriously believe an 'armed militia' could stand up to 'today's modern army' for more than the time it would take to be torn to shreds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army.  That would be treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it would not.
Click to expand...


Well, that would depend upon the size of the group I supose.  Treason is defined by the Constitution as levying war against the United States.  So if a militia were to do that, that is treason by definition.  If it were just a group of people who decided to call themselves a militia, then it would probably just be your standard criminal activity.


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Courts have spoken. They have stated that a weapon must be of use to the Militia to be covered by the second ( 39 ruling) the weapon must be in use, of use or previously used by the military.
> 
> Heller affirmed that the right is an individual right separate and distinct from the State right to form militias.
> 
> What these means is the supposed assault weapon is in fact clearly covered by the 2nd Amendment, which also includes at least 30 round magazines.
> 
> Any effort to ban or limit them would require an amendment. Something the gun grabbers are not willing to do cause they know they would lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is false on its face.  There are such bans in place and they have not been struck down by the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that the bans exist does not make him wrong, it just means no one has actually challenged the ban, usually because it is not enforced. The assault weapons ban in California has just reached the federal court system, and will almost certainly be overturned since it clearly conflicts with Heller.
Click to expand...


It does not conflict with Heller.  You are reading way too much into Heller.  Further, the fact that bans exist does make him wrong.  IMHO, reality trumps opinion every time.


----------



## PratchettFan

Quantum Windbag said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the 2nd amendment and can't find the words "assault weapons" in it anywhere.  There are no protections afforded to them. * Since you agree the state has the right to limit the type of arms citizens are allowed to keep, then it really is just a question of what limits the state wishes to apply*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't been following your conversation and I don't mean to cherry pick, but the bolded portion caught my eye.
> 
> You bring up a very good point, and one that has been allowed to evolve with every restriction placed on 'arms'.  Academically speaking, once a person concedes that the 2nd Amendment does not protect nukes, they've forfeited the argument that it protects anything, specifically.  The 2nd Amendment has been completely neutered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That, despite what you see in the movies, means that nuclear weapons are not covered because no one can actually carry one.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry.   Where in the 2nd amendment does it say "carry"?


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that the 2nd prohibits the banning of 'assault weapons' and their attending magazines.
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what I said.  I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons.  The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind.  However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to whom?
Click to expand...


According to the Supreme Court.  From the much quoted Heller decision:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "


----------



## PratchettFan

RetiredGySgt said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.
> 
> The second amendment does not say
> 
> A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
> 
> It says
> 
> 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
> 
> The founders did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, either you won't read the Constitution or you did and didn't like what you read.  No worries.  In this country you are free to be as wrong as you like.  But I will do you a favor, just in case it is simple laziness...
> 
> Article I (Legislative Powers)  Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Article I  Section 10
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> 
> Now seriously, what part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militia are not troops when not called up. They are MILITIA. Further the Federal Government can not call up all of a States militia. But that part they do call up they have to pay and arm. Leaving them to be trained by the States and officer-ed by the States. A militia not called to duty is not standing troops, that would be WHY every State before the Civil war and after had several militias.
> 
> You are aware that the National Guard units were State militias in being before being designated National Guard? You are aware that several States have independent militias separate from the National Guard? That the 2nd Amendment confers a right to the States and to the Individual?
> 
> Further the Constitution does not say the Federal Government controls all militia. It clearly states it only controls those elements called to duty by the Federal Government, since the 1880's early 1890's that has been the National Guard.
Click to expand...


I agree.  As a militia which has not been called up, the states have the right to regulate them.  A militia consists of the entire citizenry of a specific age and sex.  So the states have the right to determine how that citizenry is to be armed or - in reality - not armed.

However, a state cannot call up the militia without the permission of the Congress and Congress can, in fact, take the entire militia if it so pleases.  There is nothing in Article 1 which limits the Congress in this regard.  For practical purposes, they would not.  Since the state can only call up troops with Congressional permission (barring invasion or insurrection) the militia is under federal control.  

What you are arguing is basically like saying that since a platoon is under the command of a Lt., is does not fall under the command of the general.


----------



## PratchettFan

Two Thumbs said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.
> 
> There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.
> 
> Given that, please describe how banning such weapons does not violate the protections of the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any restriction on any arms is unconstitutional.
> 
> but we no longer have the right to bear arms, we are 'left' with the privileged to own certain handguns and approved ammo only.
> 
> Anyone that claims we have the right to bear arms is lying or kidding themselves.
Click to expand...


You are certainly free to hold that opinion.  The Supreme Court, however, does not agree.  I think I'll go with them on this.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.
> 
> Do you disagree with the assertion that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd?
> Do you believe that 'assaul weapons' can be banned w/o violating the Constitution?
> 
> If so, please support your positon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution.  They are being banned without violating the Constitution.  This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please.  It is to support a well regulated militia.  Well regulated.  Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government.  You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate.  Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing the 21st century word well regulate, government control
> With the 18th century word well regulate to be as expected in working order
> Please try and keep up.
Click to expand...


You are engaged in wishful thinking, so I won't expect you to keep up.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

The government is itself governed by the Constitution. Should it abrogate the Constitution it would no longer hold power legally and it would be treason to do other than oppose it and replace it with a legal one.


----------



## PratchettFan

9thIDdoc said:


> The government is itself governed by the Constitution. Should it abrogate the Constitution it would no longer hold power legally and it would be treason to do other than oppose it and replace it with a legal one.



Well, since that is not happening it really is a moot point.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government is itself governed by the Constitution. Should it abrogate the Constitution it would no longer hold power legally and it would be treason to do other than oppose it and replace it with a legal one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since that is not happening it really is a moot point.
Click to expand...


No, it speaks to the purpose of a militia.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

The right to keep and bear arms is individual and fundamental. Always has been. It is subject to *reasonable* regulation the same as any other. But no more than resonable. I expect that actual bans on most types of small arms will be tough to prove as "reasonable".


----------



## PratchettFan

9thIDdoc said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government is itself governed by the Constitution. Should it abrogate the Constitution it would no longer hold power legally and it would be treason to do other than oppose it and replace it with a legal one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since that is not happening it really is a moot point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it speaks to the purpose of a militia.
Click to expand...


Since no interpretation of the Consitution could possibly lead to the conclusion that is the purpose of a militia....  No, it doesn't.


----------



## PratchettFan

9thIDdoc said:


> The right to keep and bear arms is individual and fundamental. Always has been. It is subject to *reasonable* regulation the same as any other. But no more than resonable. I expect that actual bans on most types of small arms will be tough to prove as "reasonable".



"Reasonable" is determined by the courts.  So far, the courts have not been particularly enthusiastic about restricting this in any but the most extreme situations.  So, I think such bans will not prove all that tough.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms is individual and fundamental. Always has been. It is subject to *reasonable* regulation the same as any other. But no more than resonable. I expect that actual bans on most types of small arms will be tough to prove as "reasonable".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Reasonable" is determined by the courts.  So far, the courts have not been particularly enthusiastic about restricting this in any but the most extreme situations.  So, I think such bans will not prove all that tough.
Click to expand...




> Reasonable


I'll take what is, shall not be in fringed Alex for 1000.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Quantum Windbag said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson,  well regulated in the time of the founders, referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only place the phrase well regulated appears in the entire Constitution of the United States of America is in the 2nd Amendment. I am 100% positive those 27 words do not define well regulated, so I would love to know which part of the Constitution you have access to that no one else has ever seen.
Click to expand...


Impossible, he has the liberal version


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution.  They are being banned without violating the Constitution.  This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please.  It is to support a well regulated militia.  Well regulated.  Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government.  You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate.  Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the 21st century word well regulate, government control
> With the 18th century word well regulate to be as expected in working order
> Please try and keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are engaged in wishful thinking, so I won't expect you to keep up.
Click to expand...


Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, either you won't read the Constitution or you did and didn't like what you read.  No worries.  In this country you are free to be as wrong as you like.  But I will do you a favor, just in case it is simple laziness...
> 
> Article I (Legislative Powers)  Section 8
> 
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
> 
> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
> 
> Article I  Section 10
> 
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
> 
> 
> Now seriously, what part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militia are not troops when not called up. They are MILITIA. Further the Federal Government can not call up all of a States militia. But that part they do call up they have to pay and arm. Leaving them to be trained by the States and officer-ed by the States. A militia not called to duty is not standing troops, that would be WHY every State before the Civil war and after had several militias.
> 
> You are aware that the National Guard units were State militias in being before being designated National Guard? You are aware that several States have independent militias separate from the National Guard? That the 2nd Amendment confers a right to the States and to the Individual?
> 
> Further the Constitution does not say the Federal Government controls all militia. It clearly states it only controls those elements called to duty by the Federal Government, since the 1880's early 1890's that has been the National Guard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  As a militia which has not been called up, the states have the right to regulate them.  A militia consists of the entire citizenry of a specific age and sex.  So the states have the right to determine how that citizenry is to be armed or - in reality - not armed.
> 
> However, a state cannot call up the militia without the permission of the Congress and Congress can, in fact, take the entire militia if it so pleases.  There is nothing in Article 1 which limits the Congress in this regard.  For practical purposes, they would not.  Since the state can only call up troops with Congressional permission (barring invasion or insurrection) the militia is under federal control.
> 
> What you are arguing is basically like saying that since a platoon is under the command of a Lt., is does not fall under the command of the general.
Click to expand...




> What you are arguing is basically like saying that since a platoon is under the command of a Lt., is does not fall under the command of the general.



No he isn't, you're not even close.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since that is not happening it really is a moot point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it speaks to the purpose of a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since no interpretation of the Consitution could possibly lead to the conclusion that is the purpose of a militia....  No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...


Militias were overturning-or attempting to-governments for long before there was a US Constitution which exists in great part becase of militia involvement. I think my opinion is held by the majority.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what I said.  I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons.  The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind.  However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> According to whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Supreme Court.  From the much quoted Heller decision:
> 
> "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court&#8217;s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller&#8217;s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those &#8220;in common use at the time&#8221; finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "
Click to expand...

So....  where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?


----------



## PratchettFan

9thIDdoc said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it speaks to the purpose of a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since no interpretation of the Consitution could possibly lead to the conclusion that is the purpose of a militia....  No, it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias were overturning-or attempting to-governments for long before there was a US Constitution which exists in great part becase of militia involvement. I think my opinion is held by the majority.
Click to expand...


I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority.  However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to whom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Supreme Court.  From the much quoted Heller decision:
> 
> "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So....  where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are not appropriate?
Click to expand...


Can't help you there.  I guess you will just have to ask the states that do.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since no interpretation of the Consitution could possibly lead to the conclusion that is the purpose of a militia....  No, it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias were overturning-or attempting to-governments for long before there was a US Constitution which exists in great part becase of militia involvement. I think my opinion is held by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority.  However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.
Click to expand...


To those who have knowledge on the subject would agree with him over you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Supreme Court.  From the much quoted Heller decision:
> 
> "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "
> 
> 
> 
> So....  where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are not appropriate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't help you there.  I guess you will just have to ask the states that do.
Click to expand...


In other words they can't?


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias were overturning-or attempting to-governments for long before there was a US Constitution which exists in great part becase of militia involvement. I think my opinion is held by the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority.  However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To those who have knowledge on the subject would agree with him over you.
Click to expand...


By "knowledge" you mean those whose opinions match your own.  I believe I will stick with the supreme court.  They agree with me.   You can stick with "those who have knowledge on the subject."


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Supreme Court.  From the much quoted Heller decision:
> 
> "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court&#8217;s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller&#8217;s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those &#8220;in common use at the time&#8221; finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "
> 
> 
> 
> So....  where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are not appropriate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't help you there.
Click to expand...

So...  you cannot explain how your citattion of Heller supports your claim that states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate. 
Fair enough.

I shall then ask again:


> *Originally Posted by PratchettFan  *
> _That is not what I said. I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons. The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind.* However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.* _


According to whom?


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority.  However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To those who have knowledge on the subject would agree with him over you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "knowledge" you mean those whose opinions match your own.  I believe I will stick with the supreme court.  They agree with me.
Click to expand...

Not that you have neen able to show.


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....  where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are not appropriate?
> 
> 
> 
> Can't help you there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So...  you cannot explain how your citattion of Heller supports your claim that states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
> Fair enough.
> 
> I shall then ask again:
> 
> 
> 
> *Originally Posted by PratchettFan  *
> _That is not what I said. I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons. The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind.* However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.* _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to whom?
Click to expand...


According to the Supreme Court.  When I said I can't help you, I meant I can't help you to understand a SC ruling.


----------



## signelect

Borillar said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it? "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." The founders didn't believe in standing armies. Each state had its own militia. Now we have a large standing Army, Reserves, and National Guard. The National Guard is the "well regulated militia" of today. Military troops are not allowed to carry their assigned weapons around town or even on military bases. What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?
Click to expand...


It doesn't make any difference as long as he obey the law. The kid in China killed 9 people with a knife, it doesn't make any difference what kind of knife.  You are just as dead regardless.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't help you there.
> 
> 
> 
> So...  you cannot explain how your citattion of Heller supports your claim that states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
> Fair enough.
> 
> I shall then ask again:
> 
> 
> 
> *Originally Posted by PratchettFan  *
> _That is not what I said. I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons. The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind.* However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.* _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to the Supreme Court.
> 
> When I said I can't help you, I meant I can't help you to understand a SC ruling.
Click to expand...

What you really mean to say here is that you cannot explain how the paragraph you cited supports your statement because you know that it doesn't.

Disagree?  Provide your explanation.

Else, you're just copping out.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority.  However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To those who have knowledge on the subject would agree with him over you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "knowledge" you mean those whose opinions match your own.  I believe I will stick with the supreme court.  They agree with me.   You can stick with "those who have knowledge on the subject."
Click to expand...


I've given you two supreme court rulings and you scoffed at that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority.  However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To those who have knowledge on the subject would agree with him over you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "knowledge" you mean those whose opinions match your own.  I believe I will stick with the supreme court.  They agree with me.   You can stick with "those who have knowledge on the subject."
Click to expand...


What the Supreme Court HAS ruled. States may have Militias separate from the National Guard ( and some States in fact do). The 2nd Amendment confers to the States a right to form Militias and those militias do not count as troops during peace time. The Second Amendment specifically protects Military style weapons.  The Second provides a right to the Individual to own , possess and carry a Military style firearm.

You were saying?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Borillar said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it? "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." The founders didn't believe in standing armies. Each state had its own militia. Now we have a large standing Army, Reserves, and National Guard. The National Guard is the "well regulated militia" of today. Military troops are not allowed to carry their assigned weapons around town or even on military bases. What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?
Click to expand...


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
*(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute



> What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?



To defend against the government if it created laws that would create a dictator.


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...  you cannot explain how your citattion of Heller supports your claim that states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
> Fair enough.
> 
> I shall then ask again:
> 
> According to whom?
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Supreme Court.
> 
> When I said I can't help you, I meant I can't help you to understand a SC ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you really mean to say here is that you cannot explain how the paragraph you cited supports your statement because you know that it doesn't.
> 
> Disagree?  Provide your explanation.
> 
> Else, you're just copping out.
Click to expand...


I've already provided the explanation.  I have cited the Constitution and SC rulings.  None of that is going to matter because it does not say what you want it to say.  Believe as you wish.  It matters not a whit because the SC has made its position abundantly clear.  It is not going to overturn an issue which, at its heart, is a matter of state's rights.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....  where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are not appropriate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't help you there.  I guess you will just have to ask the states that do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words they can't?
Click to expand...


You do seem to have difficulty coming to grips with reality.  Clearly they can because they are.


----------



## OODA_Loop

M14 Shooter said:


> So....  where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?



I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.


----------



## PratchettFan

OODA_Loop said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....  where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.
Click to expand...


Yes.  That is what the SC said in Heller.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,
> 
> Please try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it? "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." The founders didn't believe in standing armies. Each state had its own militia. Now we have a large standing Army, Reserves, and National Guard. The National Guard is the "well regulated militia" of today. Military troops are not allowed to carry their assigned weapons around town or even on military bases. What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are&#8212;
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To defend against the government if it created laws that would create a dictator.
Click to expand...


When the SC used the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" they were just using that as an example.  The case itself really dealt with a man who was handing out literature on the docks (of New Orleans as I recall) calling for the violent overthrow of the US Government.  Which is pretty close to what you are doing.  

I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it.  *Edited.*


----------



## 9thIDdoc

PratchettFan said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....  where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is what the SC said in Heller.
Click to expand...


No, the State does not have the authority to unreasonably infringe on an individual right and it will be up to the courts-not the State-to define "reasonable". 
Attempting to ban whole classes of small arms is much the same as criminalizing the use of the word "fire" at any time or place and is unlikly to be considered reasonable.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

_"I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. "_

There's nothing marvelous in acknowleging the posibility that members of the government can themselves commit treason or in trying to be prepared to handle the possibility. Simple prudence and part of the checks and balences that define our country.


----------



## PratchettFan

9thIDdoc said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is what the SC said in Heller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the State does not have the authority to unreasonably infringe on an individual right and it will be up to the courts-not the State-to define "reasonable".
> Attempting to ban whole classes of small arms is much the same as criminalizing the use of the word "fire" at any time or place and is unlikly to be considered reasonable.
Click to expand...


That is what you say.  That is not what the courts say.  It is the courts which matter.


----------



## PratchettFan

9thIDdoc said:


> _"I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. "_
> 
> There's nothing marvelous in acknowleging the posibility that members of the government can themselves commit treason or in trying to be prepared to handle the possibility. Simple prudence and part of the checks and balences that define our country.



Apparently, you are not familar with what constitutes treason.  Perhaps you are one of those who consider treason as anything you disagree with.  The courts do not agree.  Simple prudence would be to insure that people do not change the defintion of treason for the purpose of banning opinion they do not like.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. "_
> 
> There's nothing marvelous in acknowleging the posibility that members of the government can themselves commit treason or in trying to be prepared to handle the possibility. Simple prudence and part of the checks and balences that define our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you are not familar with what constitutes treason.  Perhaps you are one of those who consider treason as anything you disagree with.  The courts do not agree.  Simple prudence would be to insure that people do not change the defintion of treason for the purpose of banning opinion they do not like.
Click to expand...


Then why do the Military swear to defend the Country against foreign and domestic enemies? By the way the Court was clear the 2nd is a individual right, the 2nd protects military type weapons. You have been provided the links.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. "_
> 
> There's nothing marvelous in acknowleging the posibility that members of the government can themselves commit treason or in trying to be prepared to handle the possibility. Simple prudence and part of the checks and balences that define our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you are not familar with what constitutes treason.  Perhaps you are one of those who consider treason as anything you disagree with.  The courts do not agree.  Simple prudence would be to insure that people do not change the defintion of treason for the purpose of banning opinion they do not like.
Click to expand...


Or perhaps you are just wrong.


----------



## FA_Q2

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't help you there.
> 
> 
> 
> So...  you cannot explain how your citattion of Heller supports your claim that states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
> Fair enough.
> 
> I shall then ask again:
> 
> 
> 
> *Originally Posted by PratchettFan  *
> _That is not what I said. I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons. The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind.* However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.* _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> According to whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the Supreme Court.  When I said I can't help you, I meant I can't help you to understand a SC ruling.
Click to expand...

*
Edited*  If you believe the court agrees with your position then you should be able to explain why.  If you can&#8217;t, then your point is entirely moot.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the Supreme Court.
> 
> When I said I can't help you, I meant I can't help you to understand a SC ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> What you really mean to say here is that you cannot explain how the paragraph you cited supports your statement because you know that it doesn't.
> 
> Disagree?  Provide your explanation.
> 
> Else, you're just copping out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already provided the explanation.
Click to expand...

You have not.


> I have cited the Constitution and SC rulings.


You have as yet to explain how these citations support your assertion;  withough ttis explanation, your citations mean nothing.   As such, you have not supported your assertion, which thus remains meaningless.


----------



## M14 Shooter

OODA_Loop said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....  where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.
Click to expand...

The Court has not ruled on any state/federal SW ban.
Given that AWs are the best example of what is protected by the 2nd (see OP), it is logically impossible for any such ban to pass muster.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....  where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is what the SC said in Heller.
Click to expand...

This is false, at least as so far as you have been able to show.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  That is what the SC said in Heller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the State does not have the authority to unreasonably infringe on an individual right and it will be up to the courts-not the State-to define "reasonable".
> Attempting to ban whole classes of small arms is much the same as criminalizing the use of the word "fire" at any time or place and is unlikly to be considered reasonable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what you say.  That is not what the courts say.
Click to expand...

The court has also not said what YOU say it has said.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borillar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it? "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." The founders didn't believe in standing armies. Each state had its own militia. Now we have a large standing Army, Reserves, and National Guard. The National Guard is the "well regulated militia" of today. Military troops are not allowed to carry their assigned weapons around town or even on military bases. What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To defend against the government if it created laws that would create a dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the SC used the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" they were just using that as an example.  The case itself really dealt with a man who was handing out literature on the docks (of New Orleans as I recall) calling for the violent overthrow of the US Government.  Which is pretty close to what you are doing.
> 
> I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it.  *Edited.*
Click to expand...


Why do you anti gunner always talk about over throwing the government?  The second amendment is to be used in defense of a tyrannical government not to over throw good government.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't help you there.  I guess you will just have to ask the states that do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words they can't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do seem to have difficulty coming to grips with reality.  Clearly they can because they are.
Click to expand...


No state can ban firearms that the supreme court had already said was protected by the second amendment. And that is a fact.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words they can't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do seem to have difficulty coming to grips with reality.  Clearly they can because they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No state can ban firearms that the supreme court had already said was protected by the second amendment. And that is a fact.
Click to expand...


No, that is not a fact.  The fact is that they are doing it.  What you stated was an utterly unsupported opinion with no basis in reality.


----------



## PratchettFan

RetiredGySgt said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. "_
> 
> There's nothing marvelous in acknowleging the posibility that members of the government can themselves commit treason or in trying to be prepared to handle the possibility. Simple prudence and part of the checks and balences that define our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you are not familar with what constitutes treason.  Perhaps you are one of those who consider treason as anything you disagree with.  The courts do not agree.  Simple prudence would be to insure that people do not change the defintion of treason for the purpose of banning opinion they do not like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why do the Military swear to defend the Country against foreign and domestic enemies? By the way the Court was clear the 2nd is a individual right, the 2nd protects military type weapons. You have been provided the links.
Click to expand...


Actually, they swear to defend the Constitution, not the Country.  They also swear to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them.  

As to the Court, I never said otherwise.  What I said is that court has held the purpose of the amendment is to support a militia:

"The prefatory clause comports with the Courts interpretation of the operative clause. The militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens militia would be preserved."

The Heller decision does not state that any given weapon is protected.  What is protected is the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms.  The Heller decision clearly states that this right is not unlimited and that the state has the right to prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual".  It does not define what is "dangerous and unusual".  As in most situations of this nature, it leaves that up to the various states and the federal government.  

All Heller says is that there cannot be a complete ban on all weapons.  It does not say there cannot be a ban on any given type of weapon.  There are indeed numerous such bans and none of them have been overturned by the courts.  In order to argue that such bans cannot happen requires one to simply refuse to accept reality.


----------



## PratchettFan

9thIDdoc said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. "_
> 
> There's nothing marvelous in acknowleging the posibility that members of the government can themselves commit treason or in trying to be prepared to handle the possibility. Simple prudence and part of the checks and balences that define our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you are not familar with what constitutes treason.  Perhaps you are one of those who consider treason as anything you disagree with.  The courts do not agree.  Simple prudence would be to insure that people do not change the defintion of treason for the purpose of banning opinion they do not like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you are just wrong.
Click to expand...


Once again, the Constitution defines treason.  I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
> *(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*
> 
> 10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> To defend against the government if it created laws that would create a dictator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the SC used the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" they were just using that as an example.  The case itself really dealt with a man who was handing out literature on the docks (of New Orleans as I recall) calling for the violent overthrow of the US Government.  Which is pretty close to what you are doing.
> 
> I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it.  *Edited.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you anti gunner always talk about over throwing the government?  The second amendment is to be used in defense of a tyrannical government not to over throw good government.
Click to expand...


No.  It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.  Show me where it says that in the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the SC used the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" they were just using that as an example.  The case itself really dealt with a man who was handing out literature on the docks (of New Orleans as I recall) calling for the violent overthrow of the US Government.  Which is pretty close to what you are doing.
> 
> I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it.  *Edited.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you anti gunner always talk about over throwing the government?  The second amendment is to be used in defense of a tyrannical government not to over throw good government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.  Show me where it says that in the Constitution.
Click to expand...




> No.  It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.




Two question's 
Where are you from?
Do you know what a Tyrannical government  is?
The public service announcement is brought to you by Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, you are not familar with what constitutes treason.  Perhaps you are one of those who consider treason as anything you disagree with.  The courts do not agree.  Simple prudence would be to insure that people do not change the defintion of treason for the purpose of banning opinion they do not like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you are just wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, the Constitution defines treason.  I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient.
Click to expand...


Can the government commit a treasonous act?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do seem to have difficulty coming to grips with reality.  Clearly they can because they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No state can ban firearms that the supreme court had already said was protected by the second amendment. And that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is not a fact.  The fact is that they are doing it.  What you stated was an utterly unsupported opinion with no basis in reality.
Click to expand...


Here's your favorite question show me in the Constitution where state law trumps the Constitution or supreme court ruling?


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or perhaps you are just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the Constitution defines treason.  I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can the government commit a treasonous act?
Click to expand...


How would the government levy war against the United States?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the Constitution defines treason.  I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can the government commit a treasonous act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would the government levy war against the United States?
Click to expand...


The government can levy war against the people


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you anti gunner always talk about over throwing the government?  The second amendment is to be used in defense of a tyrannical government not to over throw good government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.  Show me where it says that in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two question's
> Where are you from?
> Do you know what a Tyrannical government  is?
> The public service announcement is brought to you by Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Click to expand...


So, you can't show me in the Constitution where it says that.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No state can ban firearms that the supreme court had already said was protected by the second amendment. And that is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not a fact.  The fact is that they are doing it.  What you stated was an utterly unsupported opinion with no basis in reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's your favorite question show me in the Constitution where state law trumps the Constitution or supreme court ruling?
Click to expand...


Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that.  However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can the government commit a treasonous act?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would the government levy war against the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government can levy war against the people
Click to expand...


Uh huh.  The definition of treason is leving war against the United States.  How would the government do that?


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you anti gunner always talk about over throwing the government?  The second amendment is to be used in defense of a tyrannical government not to over throw good government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.  Show me where it says that in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two question's
> Where are you from?
> Do you know what a Tyrannical government  is?
> The public service announcement is brought to you by Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
Click to expand...


Yes.  I've seen a couple in my time.  And there you sit, fat and happy, saying anything you please about people who have lots and lots of guns, comfortable in the knowledge that absolutely nothing is going to happen to you.  Not even slightly worried about it.  You are so incredibly spoiled that you think tyranny is just not getting your way all the time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.  Show me where it says that in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two question's
> Where are you from?
> Do you know what a Tyrannical government  is?
> The public service announcement is brought to you by Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't show me in the Constitution where it says that.
Click to expand...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and *defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic*; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - U.S. Army Center of Military History
Oath

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which *I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic*; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
USCIS - Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

From the Declaration of Independence. Not only do you have the right to overthrow your government, it is a responsibility placed on us by a founding fathers. If our government betrays us, acts other then in accordance to our wishes or we feel changes need to be made it is our obligation to do so. 
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Now

Where are you from?
Do you know what a Tyrannical government  is?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is not a fact.  The fact is that they are doing it.  What you stated was an utterly unsupported opinion with no basis in reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your favorite question show me in the Constitution where state law trumps the Constitution or supreme court ruling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that.  However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
Click to expand...


But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two question's
> Where are you from?
> Do you know what a Tyrannical government  is?
> The public service announcement is brought to you by Thomas Jefferson
> 
> "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you can't show me in the Constitution where it says that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and *defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic*; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
> Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - U.S. Army Center of Military History
> Oath
> 
> "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which *I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic*; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
> USCIS - Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
> 
> From the Declaration of Independence. Not only do you have the right to overthrow your government, it is a responsibility placed on us by a founding fathers. If our government betrays us, acts other then in accordance to our wishes or we feel changes need to be made it is our obligation to do so.
> Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript
> 
> Now
> 
> Where are you from?
> Do you know what a Tyrannical government  is?
Click to expand...


Do let me know when you can show me where it is in the Constitution.  I'll just wait for it.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your favorite question show me in the Constitution where state law trumps the Constitution or supreme court ruling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that.  However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
Click to expand...


I guess I have to repeat myself.  It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision - not just in your head.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that.  However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I have to repeat myself.  It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
Click to expand...


Very well

*U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)*. This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

*Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980)*. Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you can't show me in the Constitution where it says that.
> 
> 
> 
> "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and *defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic*; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
> Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - U.S. Army Center of Military History
> Oath
> 
> "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which *I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic*; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
> USCIS - Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
> 
> From the Declaration of Independence. Not only do you have the right to overthrow your government, it is a responsibility placed on us by a founding fathers. If our government betrays us, acts other then in accordance to our wishes or we feel changes need to be made it is our obligation to do so.
> Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript
> 
> Now
> 
> Where are you from?
> Do you know what a Tyrannical government  is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do let me know when you can show me where it is in the Constitution.  I'll just wait for it.
Click to expand...


Do you need direction to tell you what you can and cannot do?


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have to repeat myself.  It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very well
> 
> *U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)*. This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
> 
> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
> Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
> FindLaw | Cases and Codes
> 
> *Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980)*. Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
> Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
Click to expand...


Ok.  Now I would like to see a SC ruling which actually applies to what you are claiming.   Show me a decision which actually states that the government, either the state or the feds, cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.  I've already shown you one where it said they could.

As I said, it actually has to be there. *Edited.*


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and *defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic*; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
> Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - U.S. Army Center of Military History
> Oath
> 
> "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which *I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic*; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
> USCIS - Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
> 
> From the Declaration of Independence. Not only do you have the right to overthrow your government, it is a responsibility placed on us by a founding fathers. If our government betrays us, acts other then in accordance to our wishes or we feel changes need to be made it is our obligation to do so.
> Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript
> 
> Now
> 
> Where are you from?
> Do you know what a Tyrannical government  is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do let me know when you can show me where it is in the Constitution.  I'll just wait for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you need direction to tell you what you can and cannot do?
Click to expand...


Do I personally?  Probably.  I have something of a lead foot and would probably speed a lot more if there was no law against it.  Is that your idea of tyranny?

No hurry on the Constitution thing.  Take your time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have to repeat myself.  It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very well
> 
> *U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)*. This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
> 
> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
> Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
> FindLaw | Cases and Codes
> 
> *Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980)*. Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
> Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  Now I would like to see a SC ruling which actually applies to what you are claiming.   Show me a decision which actually states that the government, either the state or the feds, cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.  I've already shown you one where it said they could.
> 
> As I said, it actually has to be there
Click to expand...



Here's what you said you even said you had to repeat yourself.


PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that.  However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I have to repeat myself. * It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision* - not just in your head.
Click to expand...


I gave you TWO Supreme Court decision's what more do you want?


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very well
> 
> *U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)*. This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
> 
> In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
> Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
> FindLaw | Cases and Codes
> 
> *Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980)*. Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
> Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Now I would like to see a SC ruling which actually applies to what you are claiming.   Show me a decision which actually states that the government, either the state or the feds, cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.  I've already shown you one where it said they could.
> 
> As I said, it actually has to be there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what you said you even said you had to repeat yourself.
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I have to repeat myself. * It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you TWO Supreme Court decision's what more do you want?
Click to expand...


You can give me a hundred decisions.  It doesn't matter unless they are pertinent to your claim.  Neither of those decisions said the state could not prohibit a particular type of weapon.  Both of those decisions were about why someone could not use the 2nd amendment.  They both restricted the application to citizens, not the states.

Show me a decision which says the states cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Now I would like to see a SC ruling which actually applies to what you are claiming.   Show me a decision which actually states that the government, either the state or the feds, cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.  I've already shown you one where it said they could.
> 
> As I said, it actually has to be there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what you said you even said you had to repeat yourself.
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have to repeat myself. * It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you TWO Supreme Court decision's what more do you want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can give me a hundred decisions.  It doesn't matter unless they are pertinent to your claim.  Neither of those decisions said the state could not prohibit a particular type of weapon.  Both of those decisions were about why someone could not use the 2nd amendment.  They both restricted the application to citizens, not the states.
> 
> Show me a decision which says the states cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.
Click to expand...


My claim is, states cannot ban any type of firearm that it chooses too. Firearms that are protected by U.S. Constitution should be a militia-type arm
Lewis vs US and Miller vs US  support me. You were saying?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

The SC states that the 2nd amendment has limits.
The SC also states that there are limits to a State's authority to restrict weapons and that those limits will be defined in the courts (not the State).


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what you said you even said you had to repeat yourself.
> 
> 
> I gave you TWO Supreme Court decision's what more do you want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can give me a hundred decisions.  It doesn't matter unless they are pertinent to your claim.  Neither of those decisions said the state could not prohibit a particular type of weapon.  Both of those decisions were about why someone could not use the 2nd amendment.  They both restricted the application to citizens, not the states.
> 
> Show me a decision which says the states cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My claim is, states cannot ban any type of firearm that it chooses too. Firearms that are protected by U.S. Constitution should be a militia-type arm
> Lewis vs US and Miller vs US  support me. You were saying?
Click to expand...


I was saying your were wrong.  Nothing in either of those decisions say that.


----------



## PratchettFan

9thIDdoc said:


> The SC states that the 2nd amendment has limits.
> The SC also states that there are limits to a State's authority to restrict weapons and that those limits will be defined in the courts (not the State).



I agree with the first sentence.  You are pretty much in error on the second.  While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government.  The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify.  Do you think that was an accident?


----------



## M14 Shooter

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your favorite question show me in the Constitution where state law trumps the Constitution or supreme court ruling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that.  However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
Click to expand...

Its quite simple, really:

-States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
-The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
-All classes of firearms pass this test.
-Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can give me a hundred decisions.  It doesn't matter unless they are pertinent to your claim.  Neither of those decisions said the state could not prohibit a particular type of weapon.  Both of those decisions were about why someone could not use the 2nd amendment.  They both restricted the application to citizens, not the states.
> 
> Show me a decision which says the states cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My claim is, states cannot ban any type of firearm that it chooses too. Firearms that are protected by U.S. Constitution should be a militia-type arm
> Lewis vs US and Miller vs US  support me. You were saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was saying your were wrong.  Nothing in either of those decisions say that.
Click to expand...



You're being obtuse in the worse kind of way.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that.  However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its quite simple, really:
> 
> -States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
> -The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
> -All classes of firearms pass this test.
> -Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> Ok.  Now I would like to see a SC ruling which actually applies to what you are claiming.   Show me a decision which actually states that the government, either the state or the feds, cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.


Heller: 


> 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District&#8217;s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of &#8220;arms&#8221; that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition&#8212;in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute&#8212;would fail constitutional muster


Handguns cannot be banned.
Nor can any other class of weapon protected by the 2nd.



> I've already shown you one where it said they could.


This is a lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter

bigrebnc1775 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
> 
> 
> 
> Its quite simple, really:
> 
> -States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
> -The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
> -All classes of firearms pass this test.
> -Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.
Click to expand...

I do, but this is a clean board and questioning a posters intellectual honesty is against the rules.


----------



## The Infidel

What exactly IS an assault weapon?

If I understand it correctly, it is a term used for military weapons something that civilians can not legally obtain (without special permits).

I think folks mistakenly call rifles such as AR-15s, and military styled rifles, assault weapons. 
This is a mistake, because it causes people to use terms incorrectly but then again the agenda of gun control would not be able to drive the conversation without using the terminology.

Just thought it wise to interject some rationality into the subject.


Carry on now.


----------



## The Infidel

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its quite simple, really:
> 
> -States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
> -The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
> -All classes of firearms pass this test.
> -Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do, but this is a clean board and questioning a posters intellectual honesty is against the rules.
Click to expand...


Its a way to bait you into telling the other debater what you really think about their idiotic so called friendly debate.

Its a joke!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The Infidel said:


> What exactly IS an assault weapon?
> 
> If I understand it correctly, it is a term used for military weapons something that civilians can not legally obtain (without special permits).
> 
> I think folks mistakenly call rifles such as AR-15s, and military styled rifles, assault weapons.
> This is a mistake, because it causes people to use terms incorrectly but then again the agenda of gun control would not be able to drive the conversation without using the terminology.
> 
> Just thought it wise to interject some rationality into the subject.
> 
> 
> Carry on now.





> I think folks mistakenly call rifles such as AR-15s, and military styled rifles, assault weapons.


That applies to the anti gun crowd.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The Infidel said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.
> 
> 
> 
> I do, but this is a clean board and questioning a posters intellectual honesty is against the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a way to bait you into telling the other debater what you really think about their idiotic so called friendly debate.
> 
> Its a joke!
Click to expand...


----------



## 9thIDdoc

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SC states that the 2nd amendment has limits.
> The SC also states that there are limits to a State's authority to restrict weapons and that those limits will be defined in the courts (not the State).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the first sentence.  You are pretty much in error on the second.  While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government.  The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify.  Do you think that was an accident?
Click to expand...


_"You are pretty much in error on the second." _
Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are 
"extremely broad" is your opinion. 

_"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."  _
The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.


----------



## M14 Shooter

9thIDdoc said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SC states that the 2nd amendment has limits.
> The SC also states that there are limits to a State's authority to restrict weapons and that those limits will be defined in the courts (not the State).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the first sentence.  You are pretty much in error on the second.  While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government.  The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify.  Do you think that was an accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"You are pretty much in error on the second." _
> Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
> "extremely broad" is your opinion.
> 
> _"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."  _
> The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
> Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.
Click to expand...

Correct
His position is that since they have not yet been ruled unconstitutional, they can/will not be.
The logical fallacy there is obvious.


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that.  However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its quite simple, really:
> 
> -States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
> -The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
> -All classes of firearms pass this test.
> -Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...


So, when the SC said they can prohibit firearms they were wrong?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
> 
> 
> 
> Its quite simple, really:
> 
> -States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
> -The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
> -All classes of firearms pass this test.
> -Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when the SC said they can prohibit firearms they were wrong?
Click to expand...


So when the SC said the only firearms that were protected by the second amendment were those suitable for military use we're they wrong?


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
> 
> 
> 
> Its quite simple, really:
> 
> -States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
> -The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
> -All classes of firearms pass this test.
> -Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.
Click to expand...


I have no problem comprehending it.  What I don't understand is why you are having trouble comprehending that what he said is not true.  It is so obviously untrue that you must exist in a state of utter credulity to think otherwise.  We are back to it being only in your head.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its quite simple, really:
> 
> -States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
> -The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
> -All classes of firearms pass this test.
> -Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem comprehending it.  What I don't understand is why you are having trouble comprehending that what he said is not true.  It is so obviously untrue that you must exist in a state of utter credulity to think otherwise.  We are back to it being only in your head.
Click to expand...


No we are back to it's only in your head. I gave you  2 supreme court rulings that ruled the only weapons the second amendment protects are those suitable for military use. A state cannot create laws that will violate the constitution or go beyond the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
> How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
> 
> 
> 
> Its quite simple, really:
> 
> -States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
> -The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
> -All classes of firearms pass this test.
> -Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, when the SC said they can prohibit firearms they were wrong?
Click to expand...

The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.


----------



## PratchettFan

9thIDdoc said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SC states that the 2nd amendment has limits.
> The SC also states that there are limits to a State's authority to restrict weapons and that those limits will be defined in the courts (not the State).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the first sentence.  You are pretty much in error on the second.  While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government.  The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify.  Do you think that was an accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"You are pretty much in error on the second." _
> Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
> "extremely broad" is your opinion.
> 
> _"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."  _
> The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
> Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.
Click to expand...


I think I did express it.  You are correct that the courts can define it.  You are incorrect that the state's can't.  The states can and the states do.  Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality.  You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.

The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws.  That is their authority under the Constitution.  Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority.  The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.


----------



## westwall

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can give me a hundred decisions.  It doesn't matter unless they are pertinent to your claim.  Neither of those decisions said the state could not prohibit a particular type of weapon.  Both of those decisions were about why someone could not use the 2nd amendment.  They both restricted the application to citizens, not the states.
> 
> Show me a decision which says the states cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My claim is, states cannot ban any type of firearm that it chooses too. Firearms that are protected by U.S. Constitution should be a militia-type arm
> Lewis vs US and Miller vs US  support me. You were saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was saying your were wrong.  Nothing in either of those decisions say that.
Click to expand...






Then you are being intellectually dishonest.


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its quite simple, really:
> 
> -States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
> -The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
> -All classes of firearms pass this test.
> -Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the SC said they can prohibit firearms they were wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.
Click to expand...


Ok.  Once again:

Like most rights, *the Second Amendment right is not unlimited*. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of *prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons*.


----------



## westwall

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the first sentence.  You are pretty much in error on the second.  While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government.  The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify.  Do you think that was an accident?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"You are pretty much in error on the second." _
> Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
> "extremely broad" is your opinion.
> 
> _"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."  _
> The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
> Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I did express it.  You are correct that the courts can define it.  You are incorrect that the state's can't.  The states can and the states do.  Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality.  You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.
> 
> The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws.  That is their authority under the Constitution.  Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority.  The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.
Click to expand...






So you tell us, what EXACTLY do the two referenced SC rulings mean to you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem comprehending it.  What I don't understand is why you are having trouble comprehending that what he said is not true.  It is so obviously untrue that you must exist in a state of utter credulity to think otherwise.  We are back to it being only in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we are back to it's only in your head. I gave you 2 supreme court rulings that ruled the only weapons the second amendment protects are those suitable for military use. A state cannot create laws that will violate the constitution or go beyond the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Yes you did.   He has done nothing to counter your citattions or their support for your statement.

The premise of the OP stands, that 'assault weapons' are the best example of the sort of 'arms' protected by the constitution, and as such any ban in them is necessarily constitutional.


----------



## westwall

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the SC said they can prohibit firearms they were wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  Once again:
> 
> Like most rights, *the Second Amendment right is not unlimited*. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of *prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons*.
Click to expand...





Yes, and how about that little part about the militia that you have excised.  How about that little part.  Hmmmm?


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the SC said they can prohibit firearms they were wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok.  Once again:
> 
> Like most rights, *the Second Amendment right is not unlimited*. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court&#8217;s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller&#8217;s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those &#8220;in common use at the time&#8221; finds support in the historical tradition of *prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons*.
Click to expand...

Please explain how this supports your assertion that the SC said states can prohibit 'assault weapons'.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the first sentence.  You are pretty much in error on the second.  While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government.  The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify.  Do you think that was an accident?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"You are pretty much in error on the second." _
> Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
> "extremely broad" is your opinion.
> 
> _"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."  _
> The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
> Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I did express it.  You are correct that the courts can define it.  You are incorrect that the state's can't.  The states can and the states do.  Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality.  You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.
> 
> The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws.  That is their authority under the Constitution.  Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority.  The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.
Click to expand...


Here's the problem you cannot not get around. No state in the 50 U.S. sates can create a law that will violate the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice the only firearms protected by the Second Amendment are those suitable for military use.


----------



## PratchettFan

westwall said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"You are pretty much in error on the second." _
> Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
> "extremely broad" is your opinion.
> 
> _"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."  _
> The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
> Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I did express it.  You are correct that the courts can define it.  You are incorrect that the state's can't.  The states can and the states do.  Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality.  You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.
> 
> The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws.  That is their authority under the Constitution.  Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority.  The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you tell us, what EXACTLY do the two referenced SC rulings mean to you.
Click to expand...


Both cases were limitations of the 2nd amendment.  Miller indicated that the only class of weapon which could be protected under the 2nd amendment would be one of a militia-type.  So a sawed off shotgun was not protected.  Lewis dealt with an individual with a criminal background.  Again, because such a person would not be in a militia, not protected.  Both decisions were predicated upon the position of the SC that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to allow citizens to own any weapon they wished but rather for the state to maintain a well regulated militia.  Neither of those decisions in any way restricted the authority of the state or federal governments in regulating those weapons.  Both of those decisions were, in fact, affirmations of that authority.

In Heller, the SC actually did something of a reversal from previous rulings by indicating that while the purpose of the 2nd amendment was the militia, the state could not restrict the ownership of weapons to only the militia.  However, the court was very careful in Heller to state that this did not mean the government did not have the right to prohibit that ownership in terms of weapons deemed dangerous and unusual.  It was mute on what that meant and thus left that to the states to determine.

The only decision which in any way restricted the authority of the state to regulate was Heller, and in that case only to the extent that there could not be a complete ban of all weapons.  Any interpretation beyond that requires reading language in those decisions which simply is not there.


----------



## PratchettFan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"You are pretty much in error on the second." _
> Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
> "extremely broad" is your opinion.
> 
> _"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."  _
> The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
> Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I did express it.  You are correct that the courts can define it.  You are incorrect that the state's can't.  The states can and the states do.  Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality.  You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.
> 
> The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws.  That is their authority under the Constitution.  Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority.  The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's the problem you cannot not get around. No state in the 50 U.S. sates can create a law that will violate the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice the only firearms protected by the Second Amendment are those suitable for military use.
Click to expand...


I don't need to get around anything.  I don't think there is a state in the union which is not doing precisely that to some extent and the SC has yet to say they can't.


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Once again:
> 
> Like most rights, *the Second Amendment right is not unlimited*. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court&#8217;s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller&#8217;s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those &#8220;in common use at the time&#8221; finds support in the historical tradition of *prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please explain how this supports your assertion that the SC said states can prohibit 'assault weapons'.
Click to expand...


The SC does not have to say they can.  All it has to do is say nothing at all.


----------



## PratchettFan

westwall said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Once again:
> 
> Like most rights, *the Second Amendment right is not unlimited*. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of *prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and how about that little part about the militia that you have excised.  How about that little part.  Hmmmm?
Click to expand...


Which part is that?


----------



## PratchettFan

M14 Shooter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem comprehending it.  What I don't understand is why you are having trouble comprehending that what he said is not true.  It is so obviously untrue that you must exist in a state of utter credulity to think otherwise.  We are back to it being only in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we are back to it's only in your head. I gave you 2 supreme court rulings that ruled the only weapons the second amendment protects are those suitable for military use. A state cannot create laws that will violate the constitution or go beyond the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes you did.   He has done nothing to counter your citattions or their support for your statement.
> 
> The premise of the OP stands, that 'assault weapons' are the best example of the sort of 'arms' protected by the constitution, and as such any ban in them is necessarily constitutional.
Click to expand...


I have done nothing?  I see.  Well.... you all enjoy your circle jerk.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Once again:
> 
> Like most rights, *the Second Amendment right is not unlimited*. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of *prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons*.
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how this supports your assertion that the SC said states can prohibit 'assault weapons'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The SC does not have to say they can.
Click to expand...

You made the positive assertion that the SC said states could ban assault weapons.

Show this to be true.

When you cite Heller in response, be sure to explain how that citation supports your assertion that the SC said states can prohibit 'assault weapons'.


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we are back to it's only in your head. I gave you 2 supreme court rulings that ruled the only weapons the second amendment protects are those suitable for military use. A state cannot create laws that will violate the constitution or go beyond the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did.   He has done nothing to counter your citattions or their support for your statement.
> 
> The premise of the OP stands, that 'assault weapons' are the best example of the sort of 'arms' protected by the constitution, and as such any ban in them is necessarily constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have done nothing? I see.  Well.... you all enjoy your circle jerk.
Click to expand...

Run along now.  Be sure to tuck that tail nice and tight.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

PratchettFan said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the first sentence.  You are pretty much in error on the second.  While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government.  The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify.  Do you think that was an accident?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"You are pretty much in error on the second." _
> Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
> "extremely broad" is your opinion.
> 
> _"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't.  So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."  _
> The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
> Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I did express it.  You are correct that the courts can define it.  You are incorrect that the state's can't.  The states can and the states do.  Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality.  You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.
> 
> The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws.  That is their authority under the Constitution.  Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority.  The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.
Click to expand...


Government is required to pass laws that are Constitutional. Passing a law that is unconstitutional exceeds it's authority, is a violation of the public trust, and is probably a violation of civil rights (as it is with firearms). Illegal action certainly doesn't define anything.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we are back to it's only in your head. I gave you 2 supreme court rulings that ruled the only weapons the second amendment protects are those suitable for military use. A state cannot create laws that will violate the constitution or go beyond the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did.   He has done nothing to counter your citattions or their support for your statement.
> 
> The premise of the OP stands, that 'assault weapons' are the best example of the sort of 'arms' protected by the constitution, and as such any ban in them is necessarily constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have done nothing?  I see.  Well.... you all enjoy your circle jerk.
Click to expand...


He's right you have not countered any argument against your claim.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PratchettFan said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I did express it.  You are correct that the courts can define it.  You are incorrect that the state's can't.  The states can and the states do.  Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality.  You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.
> 
> The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws.  That is their authority under the Constitution.  Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority.  The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the problem you cannot not get around. No state in the 50 U.S. sates can create a law that will violate the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice the only firearms protected by the Second Amendment are those suitable for military use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need to get around anything.  I don't think there is a state in the union which is not doing precisely that to some extent and the SC has yet to say they can't.
Click to expand...


If challenged any laws would be striped away.


----------



## M14 Shooter

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did.   He has done nothing to counter your citattions or their support for your statement.
> 
> The premise of the OP stands, that 'assault weapons' are the best example of the sort of 'arms' protected by the constitution, and as such any ban in them is necessarily constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have done nothing?  I see.  Well.... you all enjoy your circle jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's right you have not countered any argument against your claim.
Click to expand...

Or offered meaningful, explicit support for his own claims.


----------



## Staidhup

Legislating restraints on the possession of weapons or guns is pathetic, the key is a set of harsh laws that punish those using these weapons in the commission of a crime. The next thing you will hear is these pantie waste liberal pukes will be pushing for legislating the sale of knives in the hope of reducing stabbings? Can you legislate and prohibit a nut case or criminal from obtaining a weapon, yes, however a law and regulations has never been proven to deter a criminal or nut case from securing a weapon. So who do you really want to punish, a responsible citizen, or a criminal / nut case. New York City has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and I don't see the criminal element being deterred one bit. I for one think it's time to see these criminals fried, injected, or hung, and feel this will force criminals to pause a little before they pull out a gun and commit a crime.


----------



## westwall

PratchettFan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I did express it.  You are correct that the courts can define it.  You are incorrect that the state's can't.  The states can and the states do.  Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality.  You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.
> 
> The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws.  That is their authority under the Constitution.  Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority.  The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you tell us, what EXACTLY do the two referenced SC rulings mean to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both cases were limitations of the 2nd amendment.  Miller indicated that the only class of weapon which could be protected under the 2nd amendment would be one of a militia-type.  So a sawed off shotgun was not protected.  Lewis dealt with an individual with a criminal background.  Again, because such a person would not be in a militia, not protected.  Both decisions were predicated upon the position of the SC that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to allow citizens to own any weapon they wished but rather for the state to maintain a well regulated militia.  Neither of those decisions in any way restricted the authority of the state or federal governments in regulating those weapons.  Both of those decisions were, in fact, affirmations of that authority.
> 
> In Heller, the SC actually did something of a reversal from previous rulings by indicating that while the purpose of the 2nd amendment was the militia, the state could not restrict the ownership of weapons to only the militia.  However, the court was very careful in Heller to state that this did not mean the government did not have the right to prohibit that ownership in terms of weapons deemed dangerous and unusual.  It was mute on what that meant and thus left that to the states to determine.
> 
> The only decision which in any way restricted the authority of the state to regulate was Heller, and in that case only to the extent that there could not be a complete ban of all weapons.  Any interpretation beyond that requires reading language in those decisions which simply is not there.
Click to expand...





And what type of weapon would be used in a militia?


----------



## M14 Shooter

PratchettFan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I did express it.  You are correct that the courts can define it.  You are incorrect that the state's can't.  The states can and the states do.  Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality.  You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.
> 
> The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws.  That is their authority under the Constitution.  Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority.  The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you tell us, what EXACTLY do the two referenced SC rulings mean to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both cases were limitations of the 2nd amendment.  Miller indicated that the only class of weapon which could be protected under the 2nd amendment would be one of a militia-type.
Click to expand...

Onlt because I didnt see this earlier...   not like I have any thought that it will garner an honest response...

How do "assault weapons" not fit this description, as argued in the OP?



> So a sawed off shotgun was not protected.


Why, excactly, was that the case?



> Lewis dealt with an individual with a criminal background.  Again, because such a person would not be in a militia, not protected.


False.   This is a right-removed-by-due-process case and has nothing to do with the 2nd or the militia.  Nothng inherently prohibits a felon from being in the militia.



> Both decisions were predicated upon the position of the SC that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to allow citizens to own any weapon they wished but rather for the state to maintain a well regulated militia.


False.  Nothing in any of those cases supports this point.
One question tho:   If you're right, why did the court grant Miller standing to invoke the 2nd in his defense?

Standing:  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing



> In Heller, the SC actually did something of a reversal from previous rulings by indicating that while the purpose of the 2nd amendment was the militia, the state could not restrict the ownership of weapons to only the militia.


False.   Heller says nothing of the sort



> However, the court was very careful in Heller to state that this did not mean the government did not have the right to prohibit that ownership in terms of weapons deemed dangerous and unusual.  It was mute on what that meant and thus left that to the states to determine.


False.  Nothing in Heller says this.



> The only decision which in any way restricted the authority of the state to regulate was Heller, and in that case only to the extent that there could not be a complete ban of all weapons.


Again, false.   Nothing in Heller says this.

Given this and just about all your other posts, one of two things is clearly the case here:
-You have no idea what you're talking about
-You're lying.


----------



## FA_Q2

PratchettFan said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I did express it.  You are correct that the courts can define it.  You are incorrect that the state's can't.  The states can and the states do.  Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality.  You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.
> 
> The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws.  That is their authority under the Constitution.  Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority.  The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you tell us, what EXACTLY do the two referenced SC rulings mean to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both cases were limitations of the 2nd amendment.  Miller indicated that the only class of weapon which could be protected under the 2nd amendment would be one of a militia-type.  So a sawed off shotgun was not protected.  Lewis dealt with an individual with a criminal background.  Again, because such a person would not be in a militia, not protected.  Both decisions were predicated upon the position of the SC that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to allow citizens to own any weapon they wished but rather for the state to maintain a well regulated militia.  Neither of those decisions in any way restricted the authority of the state or federal governments in regulating those weapons.  Both of those decisions were, in fact, affirmations of that authority.
> 
> In Heller, the SC actually did something of a reversal from previous rulings by indicating that while the purpose of the 2nd amendment was the militia, the state could not restrict the ownership of weapons to only the militia.  However, the court was very careful in Heller to state that this did not mean the government did not have the right to prohibit that ownership in terms of weapons deemed dangerous and unusual.  It was mute on what that meant and thus left that to the states to determine.
> 
> The only decision which in any way restricted the authority of the state to regulate was Heller, and in that case only to the extent that there could not be a complete ban of all weapons.  Any interpretation beyond that requires reading language in those decisions which simply is not there.
Click to expand...


And there is that statement again: dangerous and unusual.  I have not seen anyone here claim that states cannot regulate dangerous and unusual weapons.  What the OP is talking about is assault weapon bans.  Tell me, do you consider these bans constitutional because they fit that description?  I cannot see for the life of me how an assault weapon (never really clearly defined) fits into the category of unusual.  In fact, they are some of the most common types of weapons around.  The bans fail the test given because they are not target at dangerous and unusual weapons.  Typically, they are targeted at weapons that look scary TBH but that is beside the point.  If I am off base here then please tell me why you believe the rulings support the bans and how those weapons fit into them.


----------



## M14 Shooter

FA_Q2 said:


> PratchettFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you tell us, what EXACTLY do the two referenced SC rulings mean to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both cases were limitations of the 2nd amendment.  Miller indicated that the only class of weapon which could be protected under the 2nd amendment would be one of a militia-type.  So a sawed off shotgun was not protected.  Lewis dealt with an individual with a criminal background.  Again, because such a person would not be in a militia, not protected.  Both decisions were predicated upon the position of the SC that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to allow citizens to own any weapon they wished but rather for the state to maintain a well regulated militia.  Neither of those decisions in any way restricted the authority of the state or federal governments in regulating those weapons.  Both of those decisions were, in fact, affirmations of that authority.
> 
> In Heller, the SC actually did something of a reversal from previous rulings by indicating that while the purpose of the 2nd amendment was the militia, the state could not restrict the ownership of weapons to only the militia.  However, the court was very careful in Heller to state that this did not mean the government did not have the right to prohibit that ownership in terms of weapons deemed dangerous and unusual.  It was mute on what that meant and thus left that to the states to determine.
> 
> The only decision which in any way restricted the authority of the state to regulate was Heller, and in that case only to the extent that there could not be a complete ban of all weapons.  Any interpretation beyond that requires reading language in those decisions which simply is not there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is that statement again: dangerous and unusual.  I have not seen anyone here claim that states cannot regulate dangerous and unusual weapons.  What the OP is talking about is assault weapon bans.  Tell me, do you consider these bans constitutional because they fit that description?  I cannot see for the life of me how an &#8216;assault&#8217; weapon (never really clearly defined) fits into the category of unusual.  In fact, they are some of the most common types of weapons around.  The bans fail the test given because they are not target at &#8216;dangerous and unusual&#8217; weapons.  Typically, they are targeted at weapons that look scary TBH but that is beside the point.  If I am off base here then please tell me why you believe the rulings support the bans and how those weapons fit into them.
Click to expand...

The argument in the the OP -precludes- 'assault weapons' from being 'damgerous and unusual' weapons because of the SC rulings to that effect.

This is the elephant in the room that a certain someone keeps trying to dance around.


----------

