Assault weapons: Questions for those that would ban them

[Ernie S.]

Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.


Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.


See above.
The 1st amendment does not protect acts that cause harm to others or places them in a condition of immediate, clear and present, danger.

Neither does the 2nd. For your examples, above, to have any meaning, you must describe the 2A analogue, and then show that anyone believes that the 2nd protects said acts.

What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hopefully they will see it now.

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Pretty dumb comment from "The Brain"

 

[TheBrain]

What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hopefully they will see it now.

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Pretty dumb comment from "The Brain"

It wasn't a comment, it was a question. And a relevant one at that.

 

[52ndStreet]

Governments reason for banning strong weapons like assault weapons isn't public safety, it's if government screws up so bad that people have no choice that a revolution won't be possible.

I would have to agree with this poster Dr. Drock. The Government does not want
any more citizens to arm themseleves with military style assault rifles. Many of the "New World Order Politicians" don't want an armed American citizenry.They all want to bring in this New World Order crap, without any resistence.!

They want the the vast majority of Americans to be unarmed Sheep, so they can do as
they wish to us.

Its time for everyone to realize this fact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Pretty dumb comment from "The Brain"

It wasn't a comment, it was a question. And a relevant one at that.

A firearm as protected by the second amendment does not include strategic weapons, neither airplanes or nuclear bombs, No bazookas either or missiles.

 

[California Girl]

Mostly because to make such an admission would be to lie.
Now, rather than run to the meaningless defense of a fraud, how about addressing the OP?

Actually, to make such an admission would be a sign of character.

A poor character, as it would be a lie.

Because you absolutely are wrong about jillian.

About her lying about her education and her cedentials?
I am not.

Lying to cover your ass makes you look petty and small minded.

Yes, I agree, those words describe her rather well.

Now, since you did not support the AWB, and thus the questions in the OP do not apply to you, did you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion - or are you simply here to offer another meaningless defense of a fraud?

Now silly. Jillian is very well educated, and she really is a lawyer... and denying that makes you look weak. You're losing any semblance of honesty with your continued stance. You're behaving like a spoiled, petulant child. Just sayin'.

 

[TheBrain]

Pretty dumb comment from "The Brain"

It wasn't a comment, it was a question. And a relevant one at that.

A firearm as protected by the second amendment does not include strategic weapons, neither airplanes or nuclear bombs, No bazookas either or missiles.

Where is the limit stated? I mean seriously if we can just arbitrarily say bazookas aren't protected by the 2nd amendment why can't we also say that automatic rifles aren't ?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It wasn't a comment, it was a question. And a relevant one at that.

A firearm as protected by the second amendment does not include strategic weapons, neither airplanes or nuclear bombs, No bazookas either or missiles.

Where is the limit stated? I mean seriously if we can just arbitrarily say bazookas aren't protected by the 2nd amendment why can't we also say that automatic rifles aren't ?

Fully automatic weapons in fact are not. 17 States ban them outright and the Federal Government requires a license to own one in the rest.

During the time the Constitution was written only the navy would be considered a strategic asset. And it is denied the States and the people to have an armed navy. Only the federal Government may arm ships or authorize the States to do so. Thus Nuclear weapons are banned to the States and the people unless authorized by the Federal Government. Same with a strategic air force. Fighters and tactical air craft can and do belong to the States but not Strategic bombers.

 

[TheBrain]

A firearm as protected by the second amendment does not include strategic weapons, neither airplanes or nuclear bombs, No bazookas either or missiles.

Where is the limit stated? I mean seriously if we can just arbitrarily say bazookas aren't protected by the 2nd amendment why can't we also say that automatic rifles aren't ?

Fully automatic weapons in fact are not. 17 States ban them outright and the Federal Government requires a license to own one in the rest.

During the time the Constitution was written only the navy would be considered a strategic asset. And it is denied the States and the people to have an armed navy. Only the federal Government may arm ships or authorize the States to do so. Thus Nuclear weapons are banned to the States and the people unless authorized by the Federal Government. Same with a strategic air force. Fighters and tactical air craft can and do belong to the States but not Strategic bombers.

But once again, there is NOTHING in the COTUS which says that private citizens can't own a tactical nuclear weapon or a fully automatic assault rifle, and yet we as a society have decided that no a private citizen can't own a nuclear weapon or a fully automatic rifle. Can't the exact same logic be used towards any other class of weapon?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where is the limit stated? I mean seriously if we can just arbitrarily say bazookas aren't protected by the 2nd amendment why can't we also say that automatic rifles aren't ?

Fully automatic weapons in fact are not. 17 States ban them outright and the Federal Government requires a license to own one in the rest.

During the time the Constitution was written only the navy would be considered a strategic asset. And it is denied the States and the people to have an armed navy. Only the federal Government may arm ships or authorize the States to do so. Thus Nuclear weapons are banned to the States and the people unless authorized by the Federal Government. Same with a strategic air force. Fighters and tactical air craft can and do belong to the States but not Strategic bombers.

But once again, there is NOTHING in the COTUS which says that private citizens can't own a tactical nuclear weapon or a fully automatic assault rifle, and yet we as a society have decided that no a private citizen can't own a nuclear weapon or a fully automatic rifle. Can't the exact same logic be used towards any other class of weapon?

The Court has ruled that any FIREARM that is of use or has been used by the military is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Fully automatic weapons are not normal firearms they are crew or squad weapons. Nukes are STRATEGIC weapons, again for the slow the Constitution says Strategic weapons are only controlled by the Federal Government. Further a bomb is not a fire arm.

 

[TheBrain]

Fully automatic weapons in fact are not. 17 States ban them outright and the Federal Government requires a license to own one in the rest.

During the time the Constitution was written only the navy would be considered a strategic asset. And it is denied the States and the people to have an armed navy. Only the federal Government may arm ships or authorize the States to do so. Thus Nuclear weapons are banned to the States and the people unless authorized by the Federal Government. Same with a strategic air force. Fighters and tactical air craft can and do belong to the States but not Strategic bombers.

But once again, there is NOTHING in the COTUS which says that private citizens can't own a tactical nuclear weapon or a fully automatic assault rifle, and yet we as a society have decided that no a private citizen can't own a nuclear weapon or a fully automatic rifle. Can't the exact same logic be used towards any other class of weapon?

The Court has ruled that any FIREARM that is of use or has been used by the military is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Fully automatic weapons are not normal firearms they are crew or squad weapons. Nukes are STRATEGIC weapons, again for the slow the Constitution says Strategic weapons are only controlled by the Federal Government. Further a bomb is not a fire arm.

The Court can of course change their ruling at ANY time reversing any ruling as long as it doesn't directly conflict with the COTUS, which of course we can debate all day long but there is nothing concrete in the 2nd Amendment to say this is allowed or it isn't allowed.

Also, where in the COTUS does it say that strategic weapons are limited to the federal government? it doesn't.

Oh and BTW I am in agreement that the ban as written is silly, and I fully support the right to own most weapons , but as a military member and a responsible gun owner you would surely have to agree that there MUST be limits simply because of the general stupidity of the general public.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But once again, there is NOTHING in the COTUS which says that private citizens can't own a tactical nuclear weapon or a fully automatic assault rifle, and yet we as a society have decided that no a private citizen can't own a nuclear weapon or a fully automatic rifle. Can't the exact same logic be used towards any other class of weapon?

The Court has ruled that any FIREARM that is of use or has been used by the military is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Fully automatic weapons are not normal firearms they are crew or squad weapons. Nukes are STRATEGIC weapons, again for the slow the Constitution says Strategic weapons are only controlled by the Federal Government. Further a bomb is not a fire arm.

The Court can of course change their ruling at ANY time reversing any ruling as long as it doesn't directly conflict with the COTUS, which of course we can debate all day long but there is nothing concrete in the 2nd Amendment to say this is allowed or it isn't allowed.

Also, where in the COTUS does it say that strategic weapons are limited to the federal government? it doesn't.

Oh and BTW I am in agreement that the ban as written is silly, and I fully support the right to own most weapons , but as a military member and a responsible gun owner you would surely have to agree that there MUST be limits simply because of the general stupidity of the general public.

Once again for the slow, when the Constitution was written the Navy was a strategic arm. It is restricted to ONLY the federal Government, No State is allowed to have an armed naval vessel in peace time. It also is not limited to the 2 year budget constraints of the Army.

 

[TheBrain]

The Court has ruled that any FIREARM that is of use or has been used by the military is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Fully automatic weapons are not normal firearms they are crew or squad weapons. Nukes are STRATEGIC weapons, again for the slow the Constitution says Strategic weapons are only controlled by the Federal Government. Further a bomb is not a fire arm.

The Court can of course change their ruling at ANY time reversing any ruling as long as it doesn't directly conflict with the COTUS, which of course we can debate all day long but there is nothing concrete in the 2nd Amendment to say this is allowed or it isn't allowed.

Also, where in the COTUS does it say that strategic weapons are limited to the federal government? it doesn't.

Oh and BTW I am in agreement that the ban as written is silly, and I fully support the right to own most weapons , but as a military member and a responsible gun owner you would surely have to agree that there MUST be limits simply because of the general stupidity of the general public.

Once again for the slow, when the Constitution was written the Navy was a strategic arm. It is restricted to ONLY the federal Government, No State is allowed to have an armed naval vessel in peace time. It also is not limited to the 2 year budget constraints of the Army.

And what does THAT have to do with private citizens? I mean there is nothing in the COTUS preventing you personally from owning a missile frigate if you could afford one. Now certainly there are laws preventing you from owning said frigate, but technically speaking it could be argued that those laws are unconstitutional, yet we accept that denying an individual the right to own a missile frigate is a good thing, don't we?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.


Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.


See above.
The 1st amendment does not protect acts that cause harm to others or places them in a condition of immediate, clear and present, danger.

Neither does the 2nd. For your examples, above, to have any meaning, you must describe the 2A analogue, and then show that anyone believes that the 2nd protects said acts.

What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hopefully they will see it now.

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Another old, tired, ignorant red herring - irrelevant to the topic and in no way addresses the issue at hand or the questions aked in the OP.

Nuclear weapons are not "arms" as the term is used in the amendment, and so having/not having the right to own them has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of 'assault weapons'.

You people REALLY need to try harder -- if you are so right, why do you have to resort to such sophomorism?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, to make such an admission would be a sign of character.

A poor character, as it would be a lie.


About her lying about her education and her cedentials?
I am not.

Lying to cover your ass makes you look petty and small minded.

Yes, I agree, those words describe her rather well.

Now, since you did not support the AWB, and thus the questions in the OP do not apply to you, did you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion - or are you simply here to offer another meaningless defense of a fraud?

Now silly. Jillian is very well educated, and she really is a lawyer.

Incorrect.

Nothnig she has ever posted supports this statement; her childish contribution to this topic alone denotes someone having just barely passed out of elementary school, and, indeed, still used to dealing with people as if on the playground. She displays not even a layman's understanding of anything regarding the law, and she has yet to present a premise and illustrate its soundness.

YOU may believe her claims as to her education and profession, but it only means, respectfully, you don't know any better.

and denying that makes you look weak.

Hardly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It wasn't a comment, it was a question. And a relevant one at that.

A firearm as protected by the second amendment does not include strategic weapons, neither airplanes or nuclear bombs, No bazookas either or missiles.

Where is the limit stated? I mean seriously if we can just arbitrarily say bazookas aren't protected by the 2nd amendment why can't we also say that automatic rifles aren't ?

First, automatic rifles are not under consideration in this topic.
Second, automatic rifles fall under the defijnition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd.

 

[TheBrain]

What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hopefully they will see it now.

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Another old, tired, ignorant red herring - irrelevant to the topic and in no way addresses the issue at hand or the questions aked in the OP.

Nuclear weapons are not "arms" as the term is used in the amendment, and so having/not having the right to own them has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of 'assault weapons'.

You people REALLY need to try harder -- if you are so right, why do you have to resort to such sophomorism?

My question is, who defines it? Certainly we can agree that the 2nd Amendment itself doesn't define the limits ? Well that leaves it to the lawmakers to pass laws and for the courts to rule on their Constitutionality doesn't it? Just as I said, the Court can at ANY TIME set ANY limit they want on what is considered to be protected under the 2nd Amendment. There is NO part of the 2nd Amendment which guarantees your right to own a machine gun with a bayonet on it.

In simplest terms you have the right to bear arms. Nothing more , nothing less, that could be limited to flintlocks and be totally within the letter of the Constitution. Certainly not the spirit, but certainly within the letter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Another old, tired, ignorant red herring - irrelevant to the topic and in no way addresses the issue at hand or the questions aked in the OP.

Nuclear weapons are not "arms" as the term is used in the amendment, and so having/not having the right to own them has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of 'assault weapons'.

You people REALLY need to try harder -- if you are so right, why do you have to resort to such sophomorism?

My question is, who defines it?

The definition of the term was addressed in US v Miller.
Since then, that definition has been confirmed. endorsed and clarified by the court at least two more times. It is established law.

Just as I said, the Court can at ANY TIME set ANY limit they want on what is considered to be protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Only if they decide to ignore almost 80 years of established precedent.

There is NO part of the 2nd Amendment which guarantees your right to own a machine gun with a bayonet on it.

Except the term "arms", which clearly covers such a weapon.
Never mind that machingeguns, as the military applies the term, do not have bayonette lugs.

In simplest terms you have the right to bear arms. Nothing more , nothing less, that could be limited to flintlocks and be totally within the letter of the Constitution. Certainly not the spirit, but certainly within the letter.

Again, Only if they decide to ignore established precedent; there's no sound argument to that end, So, yes if COULD happen, but then its just as possible that the court COULD reverse any decision regarding any other right.

 

[Missourian]

Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.


Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.


See above.
The 1st amendment does not protect acts that cause harm to others or places them in a condition of immediate, clear and present, danger.

Neither does the 2nd. For your examples, above, to have any meaning, you must describe the 2A analogue, and then show that anyone believes that the 2nd protects said acts.

What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hopefully they will see it now.

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Do you know the difference between firearms and explosives? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

 

[TheBrain]

What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hopefully they will see it now.

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Do you know the difference between firearms and explosives? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

The word firearm is found NOWHERE in the Second Amendment. I assume you realize that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.


Please describe the 2nd Amednment equivelant to this.


See above.
The 1st amendment does not protect acts that cause harm to others or places them in a condition of immediate, clear and present, danger.

Neither does the 2nd. For your examples, above, to have any meaning, you must describe the 2A analogue, and then show that anyone believes that the 2nd protects said acts.

What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hopefully they will see it now.

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Do you know that the superme court has ruled many times that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are military grade weapons?