'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

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

  1. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,804
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,845
    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?
     
  2. PratchettFan
    Offline

    PratchettFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,238
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,706
    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.
     
  3. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,804
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,845
    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.
     
  4. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,572
    The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  5. PratchettFan
    Offline

    PratchettFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,238
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,706
    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.
     
  6. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    48,825
    Thanks Received:
    10,074
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +30,338




    Then you are being intellectually dishonest.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. PratchettFan
    Offline

    PratchettFan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,238
    Thanks Received:
    745
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,706
    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.
     
  8. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    48,825
    Thanks Received:
    10,074
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +30,338




    So you tell us, what EXACTLY do the two referenced SC rulings mean to you.
     
  9. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,572
    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.
     
  10. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    48,825
    Thanks Received:
    10,074
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +30,338



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

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

examples of military personal that agree with assult weapon bans