For those that support banning 'assault weapns'

[OODA_Loop]

Nuclear arms are "arms," and the Constitution does not specify type or extremity.

Sure it does. Arms which the individual can bear.

No, that's the way a court has chosen to interpret it, but it doesn't actually say that.

No it specifically protects the individual right to bear arms in its wording.

Have you read it ?

 

[JustTheFacts]

Sure it does. Arms which the individual can bear.

No, that's the way a court has chosen to interpret it, but it doesn't actually say that.

No it specifically gives the individual the right to bear arms in its wording.

Have you read it ?

have I read it? Have you?


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.

where does it say shit about the individual, or about weapons that one person can handle?

 

[OODA_Loop]

No, that's the way a court has chosen to interpret it, but it doesn't actually say that.

No it specifically gives the individual the right to bear arms in its wording.

Have you read it ?

have I read it? Have you?


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.

where does it say shit about the individual, or about weapons that one person can handle?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms.....that part.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Nuclear arms are "arms," and the Constitution does not specify type or extremity.

Sure it does. Arms which can the individual can bear.

I can bear a neutron bomb in a suitcase. I can bear enough C4 to take out a WalMart. I can bear a biological weapon. I can bear an RPG. I can bear a .50 caliber machine gun.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Nuclear arms are "arms," and the Constitution does not specify type or extremity.

Sure it does. Arms which can the individual can bear.

I can bear a neutron bomb in a suitcase. I can bear enough C4 to take out a WalMart. I can bear a biological weapon. I can bear an RPG. I can bear a .50 caliber machine gun.

Not arms.

Nukes, Explosives, biological weapons, RPG are ordnance controlled by non-firearms law.

Some .50 machine guns are legal but controlled by the NFA via taxation.

 

[JustTheFacts]

No it specifically gives the individual the right to bear arms in its wording.

Have you read it ?

have I read it? Have you?


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.

where does it say shit about the individual, or about weapons that one person can handle?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms.....that part.

and people is plural, they were pretty smart men if they had meant singular person they would have written that.

 

[OODA_Loop]

have I read it? Have you?


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.

where does it say shit about the individual, or about weapons that one person can handle?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms.....that part.

and people is plural, they were pretty smart men if they had meant singular person they would have written that.

Not according to SCOTUS.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

have I read it? Have you?


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.

where does it say shit about the individual, or about weapons that one person can handle?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms.....that part.

and people is plural, they were pretty smart men if they had meant singular person they would have written that.

Well, that and the fact that the word "militia" is implicitly plural, one could even argue explicitly so.

 

[OODA_Loop]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms.....that part.

and people is plural, they were pretty smart men if they had meant singular person they would have written that.

Well, that and the fact that the word "militia" is implicitly plural, one could even argue explicitly so.

You could argue it.

But SCOTUS has settled it and it has been incorporated.

Shift your efforts to controlling criminals and the mentally defective.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

and people is plural, they were pretty smart men if they had meant singular person they would have written that.

Well, that and the fact that the word "militia" is implicitly plural, one could even argue explicitly so.

You could argue it.

But SCOTUS has settled it and it has been incorporated.

Shift your efforts to controlling criminals and the mentally defective.

Heller focuses on the individual because it deals with how the 2nd Amendment affects and applies to the individual. It neither supports or negates the meaning of either "people" or "militia," as both are still implicitly plural.

As for focusing on controlling access by criminals and the mentally defective, I agree.

 

[JustTheFacts]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms.....that part.

and people is plural, they were pretty smart men if they had meant singular person they would have written that.

Not according to SCOTUS.

well thank your for admitting that I was correct when I said that the 2nd did not mention individual weapon platforms, that is only how the court has interpreted it.

The fact is the 2nd was poorly written and needs a reboot.

Of course no one should have the ability to acquire a nuclear warhead, but under the current 2nd it is unconstitutional to say they can't.

We need a new amendment to protect gun owners as much as to keep weapons out of the hands of people who ought not have weapons.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Heller focuses on the individual because it deals with how the 2nd Amendment affects and applies to the individual. It neither supports or negates the meaning of either "people" or "militia," as both are still implicitly plural.

As for focusing on controlling access by criminals and the mentally defective, I agree.

The Scalia majority in Heller v. DC finds that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely the same "people" who enjoy 1st and 5th protections.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Of course no one should have the ability to acquire a nuclear warhead, but under the current 2nd it is unconstitutional to say they can't.

Except you can't bear a nuclear warhead and it is illegal to possess by other laws which are Constitutional.

Nice try though.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Of course no one should have the ability to acquire a nuclear warhead, but under the current 2nd it is unconstitutional to say they can't.

Except you can't bear a nuclear warhead and it is illegal to possess by other laws which are Constitutional.

Nice try though.

Sure you can , ever hear of a nuclear suitcase?


As for the laws which make it illegal to own one, how can a law be valid ? I actually argue the same when it comes to say making it illegal to yell bomb in an airport. Not saying that one should yell bomb in an airport, but the first is pretty clear in that it can't be made illegal.

And there is no nice try about it. I argue that we need a new Amendment which LEGALLY precludes citizens from owning such weaponry. I'm not arguing that we should be able to own them, only that currently under the 2nd any law which says we can't is unconstitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's becoming clear that firearms present more of a danger than what firearms were to protect us from in the first place. The question posed on this thread is absurd, when our own children are using firearms to slaughter each other. What the hardware is called or how it works is irrelevant. Do we really NEED the second amendment anymore? That would be the more pertinent question. Does this society really need firearms anymore?

Funny, it isn't clear to me. The United States has more guns per capita than any nation on Earth. In fact, the last time I looked the next country had about half the guns we do per capita. If guns were inherently dangerous this should be the most dangerous place to live on Earth, yet we are not even in the top ten.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Agreed. I can finally purchase that nuclear warhead I've had my eyes on.

well, i did say "arguably", and did so with the knowledge that someone would bring up nukes.

nukes, and any weapon of mass destruction, are offensive weapons and not designed to protect the individual's rights. they are also indiscriminate as to their target. and this is not to mention many are governed by international law or treaty.

Nuclear arms are "arms," and the Constitution does not specify type or extremity. However, it does permit a loose idea of "regulation." That was the genius of the 2nd Amendment. The speed or degree at which arms technology develops is whatever it is. A reasonable expectation of who is capable and responsible enough to have possession of certain types of arms exists, within the context of a "well-regulated militia."

The 39 ruling of the Supreme Court is clear. In order to be protected by the 2nd a weapon must be in use, of use or common to the military. As for nukes they are not arms, they are strategic assets and the Constitution is clear that Strategic assets are forbidden to the States much less the people. Perhaps you should read the Constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

have I read it? Have you?


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.

where does it say shit about the individual, or about weapons that one person can handle?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms.....that part.

and people is plural, they were pretty smart men if they had meant singular person they would have written that.

So the rights granted by the 1st 5th and all the others are collective rights? We do not have an individual right to freedom of speech? To be protected by the 5th? I mean they used people there, that is after all plural and they could have been clearer, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 1994 'assault weapon' ban covered semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines that included two or more of the following accessories:

-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades

Can any of the supporters of this ban, or those who would reinstate it, explain with specificity what about any combination of the listed accessories create a rifle that should not be in the hands of the general public?

What compelling state interest is there in banning rifles with these accessories, and how is the ban in question the least restrictive means to meet that interest?

As you know, I personally believe the 2nd actually and literally means the USG can't impose ANY limits. And I believe we need a new amendment which makes some limits okay. Not ALL limits of course, but some.

I'll take a shot at your question though

folding or telescoping stock? Makes a semi automatic rifle much easier to conceal of course. Which makes it easier for these peckerwoods to sneak them into places.

pistol grip - who the hell knows

Bayonet mount - well shit if you need an explanation for this one.......

Flash suppressor - makes it easier for a shooter to conceal his position.

Muzzle device - again, obvious.

Not suggesting I agree with the definition, but they do have legitimate reasons

Pistol grips allow shorter stocks because they are ergonomic, no reason to ban them other than not wanting small people to own guns.

Bayonet mounts are pretty useless unless you plan on attaching a bayonet and stabbing people. Considering that we are, allegedly, worried about shootings, I see no reason to ban them.

The primary purpose of flash suppressors is to redirect the gasses exiting a carbine so they do not blind the shooter in low light conditions. The only reason to ban them is because you are stupid.

Banning muzzle devices to launch grenades only makes sense if there is easy access to grenades. When was the last time someone used a rifle grenade to kill someone in a school?

 

[JustTheFacts]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms.....that part.

and people is plural, they were pretty smart men if they had meant singular person they would have written that.

So the rights granted by the 1st 5th and all the others are collective rights? We do not have an individual right to freedom of speech? To be protected by the 5th? I mean they used people there, that is after all plural and they could have been clearer, right?

That isn't even the argument I made. I was speaking only to the theory that the 2nd is limited to weapons that could be handled by individuals. I said NOTHING about individuals not having a right to own weapons.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I was speaking only to the theory that the 2nd is limited to weapons that could be handled by individuals.

It is. That is why it is limited to arms the individual can bear. All the other extreme examples you use are prohibited by law, the Constitutionality of which is not at issue.