Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"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?
The OP was very clear. Please feel free to address it.Are you saying that if the assault weapons ban is unconstitional then nothing can be done about Assault weapons?
Not in order to exercise the right or have your right protected - correct.There is no militia requirement for the 2nd Amendment.Please read what I said more carefully.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.
None whatever.
I'm sorry -- I dont see your response to the OP.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?
Various SCOTUS rulings that you haven't bothered to cite is what you mean.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 must have missed your response to the OP.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 suggest you re-read Heller. It addresses this at length.Quick question; who is the "regulator" in the "well regulated" part of the Amendment? Surely it's not the government, right?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
So you agree that the 2nd prohibits the banning of 'assault weapons' and their attending magazines.The SC has held that there cannot be a complete ban of weapons.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.
No one argues that thr 2nd protects the right to own and use ALL weapons.Exactly right. There are no stipulations at all.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"
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.
"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.
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.
This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.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.
Well, given that they are indeed banned in many areas I would say this statement is false on its face.
The word regulate does not mean the same as it did back thenThe 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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
