What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

[LadyGunSlinger]

The right to bear arms shall NOT be restricted.

That's not what it says

As for the second it does in fact provide two distinct rights, One to the States to ensure they will always have the right to Militia and the second to INDIVIDUAL citizens ensuring that they will always have the right to bear arms.

Also not what it says

Yes it does. DUMB FUCK.

lol!! Get em!

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

lgs is a child. Her ignorance and lack of intellectual and ideological maturity is clear in this very thread.

For instance, she accuses me of being a racist because it's what she's been taught to do- but she still can't bring herself to say slavery is wrong- and that the FF and the constitution and SCOTUS were wrong in defending/protecting the institution.

Hang on, I've got a kleenex I just used to wipe my dogs ass with..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, it says 'infringed'. It doesn't say there can be no limits.

Else sacrificing kidnapped virgins on a harvest moon to appease Kthulu would be legal- can't touch my right to practice my religion either, right?

But what the hell- let's give Loughner a tommy gun- can't restrict anyone's right to keep and bear arms, right?

But I'll throw you a bone: it's possibly that you're right and the constitution is simply wrong.

I just happen to think it's the other way 'round and the FF got it right on this one

The weapons covered by the Amendment may not be regulated in such a way as to deny access or ownership to citizens of this Country covered by said Amendment. For example the old Assault Weapon ban was Unconstitutional. No one challenged it so it stood. However the 39 ruling clearly places the so called assault weapons on the protected list of firearms covered by the Amendment. Fully automatic weapons are NOT on the list as approved by Congress and so ruled by the Supreme Court. They may be barred or limited and the Government does so. 17 States have outlawed them for private ownership and in the rest one must apply for and pay for a permit to own one. With very restrictive requirements on reporting the location of said weapon to the Federal Government.

The 2nd Amendment conveys to the States a RIGHT to have, maintain and train Militias. Just because States currently chose not to does not change this right. The National Guard is simply the portion of said militia that is available to the Federal Government from the State militias.

 

[Ringel05]

Then that would be flintlock black powder weapons.

Given that "reasoning" then the same is true for the remainder of the Amendments, hence free speech does not apply to any form of "electronic" modern media.
Maybe you should get your hand powered printing press and hemp paper ready.

 

[JFK_USA]

I will go with what the founding fathers had. Non-automatic weapons were not around so I doubt if they were around they would make legal assault and automatic weapons. I mean seriously, you don't need an automatic weapon to shoot a deer or to defend yourself.

So the high capacity magazines, assault rifles should be outlawed.

The 2nd is all about exercising the right to self-defense, presumably against people that are shooting back.
Why would you ban the weapons that are best suited for this?

Cuz he's a straight-up dumbass?

Thats hilarious. So you support Jared Lougher's right to kill 9 year olds and congresswoman?

Think about it, you don't need 31 rounds to defend yourself at once. What you need is to get out on the shooting range and practice your aim. If you can't disable a person with 10 shots, then you don't deserve the right to have that gun. You're an embarassment. And why the hell do you need an AK-47? You're not in a war. You don't need it. A rifle or shotgun would be just fine. And I don't really see people carrying around shotguns to the grocery store or even handguns.

This shouldn't be up for debate. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines should be illegal.

 

[Ringel05]

The 2nd is all about exercising the right to self-defense, presumably against people that are shooting back.
Why would you ban the weapons that are best suited for this?

Cuz he's a straight-up dumbass?

Thats hilarious. So you support Jared Lougher's right to kill 9 year olds and congresswoman?

Think about it, you don't need 31 rounds to defend yourself at once. What you need is to get out on the shooting range and practice your aim. If you can't disable a person with 10 shots, then you don't deserve the right to have that gun. You're an embarassment. And why the hell do you need an AK-47? You're not in a war. You don't need it. A rifle or shotgun would be just fine. And I don't really see people carrying around shotguns to the grocery store or even handguns.

This shouldn't be up for debate. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines should be illegal.

Either all the Amendments keep pace with progressing technology or none do. Your argument is an emotionally based strawman.

 

[JFK_USA]

Cuz he's a straight-up dumbass?

Thats hilarious. So you support Jared Lougher's right to kill 9 year olds and congresswoman?

Think about it, you don't need 31 rounds to defend yourself at once. What you need is to get out on the shooting range and practice your aim. If you can't disable a person with 10 shots, then you don't deserve the right to have that gun. You're an embarassment. And why the hell do you need an AK-47? You're not in a war. You don't need it. A rifle or shotgun would be just fine. And I don't really see people carrying around shotguns to the grocery store or even handguns.

This shouldn't be up for debate. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines should be illegal.

Either all the Amendments keep pace with progressing technology or none do. Your argument is an emotionally based strawman.

Thats why they gave enumerated powers to the congress to enact laws they felt best for the times. I am not talking about banning all guns. Just unneccesary ones.

 

[Ringel05]

Thats hilarious. So you support Jared Lougher's right to kill 9 year olds and congresswoman?

Think about it, you don't need 31 rounds to defend yourself at once. What you need is to get out on the shooting range and practice your aim. If you can't disable a person with 10 shots, then you don't deserve the right to have that gun. You're an embarassment. And why the hell do you need an AK-47? You're not in a war. You don't need it. A rifle or shotgun would be just fine. And I don't really see people carrying around shotguns to the grocery store or even handguns.

This shouldn't be up for debate. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines should be illegal.

Either all the Amendments keep pace with progressing technology or none do. Your argument is an emotionally based strawman.

Thats why they gave enumerated powers to the congress to enact laws they felt best for the times. I am not talking about banning all guns. Just unneccesary ones.

No, the Bill of Rights was not listed in order of importance, each one is equal to the other and no, enumerated powers cannot be used to arbitrarily "amend" any of the Amendments. Remember, those amendments tell the government what it can't do. Sorry, you argument still doesn't fly.

 

[JFK_USA]

Then how could Congress and the president pass an assault weapons ban? That all I am saying gets reenacted.

 

[Ringel05]

Then how could Congress and the president pass an assault weapons ban? That all I am saying gets reenacted.

That falls under the, always debatable, realm of reasonable restrictions. Debatable because what is considered reasonable, what you think? What someone else thinks? Therein lies the rub.
Then there is the definition of what constitutes an assault weapon, I hold to the original, and I might add, only true definition, not the media popularized, incorrect definition. And even then those aren't illegal, but they, in my humble opinion, are heavily regulated and rightfully so.
Oh and their legal right to enact those restrictions on a national level are also still debatable.

 

[sparky]

a good read would be the many interpretations of "to keep and bear arms", which goes back to ancient times>
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the meaning of "well regulated militia". alnog with it's "Historical models of interpretation" , as well as SCOTUS cases that have argued it's definition for centuries here

the many shades of grey possible in white/black hat ideology provides ample fat for the fire....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The 2nd is all about exercising the right to self-defense, presumably against people that are shooting back.
Why would you ban the weapons that are best suited for this?

Cuz he's a straight-up dumbass?

Thats hilarious. So you support Jared Lougher's right to kill 9 year olds and congresswoman?

Think about it, you don't need 31 rounds to defend yourself at once. What you need is to get out on the shooting range and practice your aim. If you can't disable a person with 10 shots, then you don't deserve the right to have that gun. You're an embarassment. And why the hell do you need an AK-47? You're not in a war. You don't need it. A rifle or shotgun would be just fine. And I don't really see people carrying around shotguns to the grocery store or even handguns.

This shouldn't be up for debate. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines should be illegal.

Because a person may abuse a right is NEVER a reason to deny that right to everyone. Think of the arguments that can be made using he excuse someone may abuse a right.

One of the purposes of the second Amendment is to ensure the citizenry have access to firearms that are commonly in use by the military. Simply because someone may abuse that right is not EVER justification to deny that right to everyone.

For all you know, denied the weapons he used he may have made a truck bomb and killed even more people.

There is no such thing as an assault weapon and there is every reason under the 2nd to ensure we the citizenry have access to high capacity magazines.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then how could Congress and the president pass an assault weapons ban? That all I am saying gets reenacted.

Because the gun rights groups were to cowardly to challenge it. It was on its face UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Once again read the 1939 Supreme Court decision. Military type weapons are EXACTLY what are protected by the 2nd.

 

[Mini 14]

You don't understand that no such thing as a fair fight exists. You would never see it coming.

OK, after this beating of our manly chests, what was your point above?

My point was that we disagree, and that your interpretation of the Constitution is not the only one. You were in the middle of changing my opinion when you threw your service and age into the discussion.

minicomrade, you questioned my unfounded phobia of guns, so I corrected you by pointing out my service and MOS qualifications. OK, we disagree, and I still don't see how your points meet constitutional requirements. So make it more clear. Just what firearms are permissible to the 2nd Amendment, in your opinion?

Any that a private citizen is legally allowed to possess (in other words, ALL that are not restricted to LE or military ONLY). All of the ones listed in the OP are protected by the 2nd currently.....and then some.

 

[Mini 14]

So if the drunk down the street had a few FGM-148 Javelins laying around it wouldn't bother you? Or would you be that drunk?

You really have no understanding of the law, do you?

Most US citizens can buy a hand grenade, with the proper license.

Hold on, tiger.

What the hell are you talking about.

How about you link to a city/county/state URL enumerating this hand grenade policy for 'most US citizens with the proper license'.

Will a Federal citation suffice?

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You really have no understanding of the law, do you?

Most US citizens can buy a hand grenade, with the proper license.

Hold on, tiger.

What the hell are you talking about.

How about you link to a city/county/state URL enumerating this hand grenade policy for 'most US citizens with the proper license'.

Will a Federal citation suffice?

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the many lies told by the BATF when it raided the Waco compound was that because they had LEGALLY bought grenade shells they must have live grenades at the compound. Another lie was that they had purchased the weapons they had illegally. The reality is that several of the members LEGALLY had Firearms license like you have. The BATF canceled their licenses before the raid but did not tell them. The BATF has yet to produce a single weapon modified to full auto from the compound also. Another lie they told.

 

[sparky]

Then how could Congress and the president pass an assault weapons ban? That all I am saying gets reenacted.

Because the gun rights groups were to cowardly to challenge it. It was on its face UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Once again read the 1939 Supreme Court decision. Military type weapons are EXACTLY what are protected by the 2nd.

okay....



United States v. Miller Main article: United States v. Miller
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons:

Jack Miller and Frank Layton "did unlawfully...transport in interstate commerce from...Claremore...Oklahoma to...Siloam Springs...Arkansas a certain firearm...a double barrel...shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length...at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce...not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code, ...and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order...as provided by Section 1132C..."[158]
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court stated "the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable."[159] As the Court explained:

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 any 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.[160]

Gun rights advocates cite Miller because they claim that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of "ordinary military equipment."[161] Gun control advocates cite Miller because they claim that the Court did not consider the question of whether the sawed-off shotgun in the case would be an applicable weapon for personal defense, instead looking solely at the weapon's suitability for the "common defense."[162] Law professor Andrew McClurg states, "The only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact."[163]


Now recognizing the association of 'right to bear arms' juxtaposed to your (if i'm reading you right) association to military weaponry, shouldn't i be able to mount a howitzer to my roof, and park an F16 in the front yard sarge?

If so, i'm in....

 

[BrianH]

I would like to hunt an elephant with a .50 cal just once in my life. That would be intense. It could be an elephant who has some type of fatal disease or something, I would feel guilty thinning the herb by taking a fertile healthy adult from the population.

Actually, regular annaul hunting does this very thing. Without hunting deer and pigs, they would over-graze and over-populate.

 

[Mini 14]

Do you happen to know the diff between banning guns and regulating guns?

Any idea?

LOL Regulating guns.. Is that like what the definition of is, is? Regulate this:

So Loughner should still be allowed to have an ar-15?

I knew you were retarded when you revealed you're cool with slavery

Loughner is under indictment for a felony (question 12b) and incarcerated, so as of now, he is not allowed to possess firearms.

 

[BrianH]

Notice that is a privilege by law, not by constitutional intent. By the latter, you have only the right to own a black powder flintlock.

It does not state this in the constitution. Your assumption is strictly that...

The second Amendment does not say, "the right to bear black powder flintlock muskets."