'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by M14 Shooter, Jul 31, 2012.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,117
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,492
    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.
     
  2. Vast LWC
    Offline

    Vast LWC <-Mohammed

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,390
    Thanks Received:
    871
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +871
    Hmm...

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

    What does this mean, exactly?

    What are "traditional legal uses", specifically?
     
  3. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,117
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,492
    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.
     
  4. there4eyeM
    Offline

    there4eyeM unlicensed metaphysician

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    8,088
    Thanks Received:
    821
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,301
    Why are fully automatics banned, then?
     
  5. Borillar
    Offline

    Borillar Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    4,368
    Thanks Received:
    619
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    Ratings:
    +1,562
    The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?
     
  6. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,117
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,492
    They aren't.
    Do you have an argument...?
     
  7. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,117
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,492
    Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,

    Please try again.
     
  8. Borillar
    Offline

    Borillar Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    4,368
    Thanks Received:
    619
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    Ratings:
    +1,562
    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?
     
  9. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,351
    Thanks Received:
    12,342
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,586
    Sure, if Congress says so, since "common usage" can't be used to include them.
     
  10. Firehorse
    Offline

    Firehorse Free Thinker

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    548
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +77
    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
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

examples of military personal that agree with assult weapon bans