I will support the reinstatement of the 1994 'assault weapon ban' if...

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I spent a few hours last night reading over the Supreme Courts rulings on the second amendment and the only reference I found to guns that are not protected are short barreled shotguns. The argument was that there was no reason to believe that they held any importance in the defense of the nation in any military way.

Of course that decision was made after WWI when shotguns in military use were cut down to make them easier to use in the trenches but before WWII and Vietnam where shotguns were again cut down to make them easier to use. The general understanding is that the founders expected every citizen to have at least hunting weapons and a weapon consistant with the current military weapons of the time. When they were called to duty they were supposed to bring with them the military weapon and leave the hunting arms for the family to use for food gathering.
The courts have never listed any gun by name or type that could be banned from use by the population in defense of themselves or their country. They have said that the right to keep and bear arms is to protect property and self from criminals and tyranical government.
So, what guns will I need when the US government uses the military to confiscate my rights?
I am thinking that one thermo-nuclear device would be enough to put a stop to it. Alas, we can't own those or even any kind of bomb but we can own military and paramilitary style weapons.

Um…no, not quite.

Miller overturned a lower court ruling invalidating the NFA, where regulating firearms is permissible in the context of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, as sawed-off shotguns were deemed by the Court not necessary “to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia…”

Heller in essence reaffirmed this principle:

2. 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. Pp. 54–56.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The question then becomes what constitutes a weapon ‘dangerous and unusual’ or “in common use at the time.” Per Miller sawed-off shotguns are the former; in most jurisdictions AR 15s and the like are the latter.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dude you're bouncing all over the place here. First it was the presidential election and now obamacare.

By the way as I first said obamacare was ruled unconstitutional obamatax was not.

Nope. Go back. Asked both in the first post questioning your claim of brilliance.

Obamacare was ruled constitutional.

but you asked the same question that I had already answered.
obamacare. That's why I said you were bouncing all over the place.

ok

 

[9thIDdoc]

" ...in most jurisdictions AR 15s and the like are the latter. "

Untrue, especially so in discussions of Federal bans.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I spent a few hours last night reading over the Supreme Courts rulings on the second amendment and the only reference I found to guns that are not protected are short barreled shotguns. The argument was that there was no reason to believe that they held any importance in the defense of the nation in any military way.

Of course that decision was made after WWI when shotguns in military use were cut down to make them easier to use in the trenches but before WWII and Vietnam where shotguns were again cut down to make them easier to use. The general understanding is that the founders expected every citizen to have at least hunting weapons and a weapon consistant with the current military weapons of the time. When they were called to duty they were supposed to bring with them the military weapon and leave the hunting arms for the family to use for food gathering.
The courts have never listed any gun by name or type that could be banned from use by the population in defense of themselves or their country. They have said that the right to keep and bear arms is to protect property and self from criminals and tyranical government.
So, what guns will I need when the US government uses the military to confiscate my rights?
I am thinking that one thermo-nuclear device would be enough to put a stop to it. Alas, we can't own those or even any kind of bomb but we can own military and paramilitary style weapons.

According too Miller vs. U.S. in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and the kind in common use at the time.

So how does that justify the possession/ownership of fireams for defence against criminals?
After all, that isn't the purpose of a militia.

Miller discusses the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd, not who has the right and to what purpose that weapon might be used.
Heller does this:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

[JustTheFacts]

According too Miller vs. U.S. in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and the kind in common use at the time.

So how does that justify the possession/ownership of fireams for defence against criminals?
After all, that isn't the purpose of a militia.

Miller discusses the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd, not who has the right and to what purpose that weapon might be used.
Heller does this:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

My stance is still that ANY limitations are unconstitutional because of how poorly written the 2nd is.

Hell , it doesn't even say small arms. I should be able to own a tactical nuclear warhead for home defense if I want one.

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[PaulS1950]

The second amendment and the other nine in the Bill of Rights were put in place to show that government had no power to change or modify them. They are "God given" or "natural" rights that are beyond the power of government or the vote of the people. As long as we follow the constitution those rights listed and unlisted will always remain as part of the power that belongs to the people.
It doesn't say you have to exercise your rights it just says they are untouchable.
If you don't like or are affraid of guns then don't get one but don't try to limit others by your preferences or fears. We each have the right to keep and bear arms just like we each have the right to freely express our thoughts through conversation and debate or to choose what religion, if any, that we will practice. We DO NOT have any right or power to force our views on others.