'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

[PratchettFan]

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.

America's founders were traitors. Treason would be doing something unconstitutional. Would assassinating American citizens without due process be treasonous?

<sigh> Is it really so difficult for Americans who talk so much about staying within the Constitution to actually take a little time to read it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Here's a free lesson, well regulated in the time of the founders, referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.

The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.

The second amendment does not say

A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says

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 did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.

 

[PratchettFan]

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 XXXXX.

The 2nd amendment does not mention FIREARMS.

 

[manifold]

You want to rewrite one amendment why stop their?

If you have ideas about other amendments you think might be explicitly deficient, I'd love to hear them, but that's probably best saved for another thread. Regarding the topic of this thread, yes, I'd rather see the 2nd Amendment rewritten than largely disregarded, as it currently stands.

I'm an all or nothing guy, you rewrite one you rewrite them all.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the several amendments that have been added, and some rewritten, since The Constitution was originally ratified. This might come as a surprise to you, but they don't all get rewritten every time.

 

[PratchettFan]

"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.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

Thank you. So you agree the militia is controlled by the federal government. Now, read the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A well regulated militia would not stand up to today's modern army. That would be treason.

America's founders were traitors. Treason would be doing something unconstitutional. Would assassinating American citizens without due process be treasonous?

<sigh> Is it really so difficult for Americans who talk so much about staying within the Constitution to actually take a little time to read it?

1. The founders were traitors
2. treason would be doing something unconstitutional
3. would depriving a citizen of his due process be treasonous?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

Thank you. So you agree the militia is controlled by the federal government. Now, read the Constitution.

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[PratchettFan]

I haven't been following your conversation and I don't mean to cherry pick, but the bolded portion caught my eye.

You bring up a very good point, and one that has been allowed to evolve with every restriction placed on 'arms'. Academically speaking, once a person concedes that the 2nd Amendment does not protect nukes, they've forfeited the argument that it protects anything, specifically. The 2nd Amendment has been completely neutered.

You could argue that. You could also argue that since I can't store several tons of land mines in my garage 10 feet from your children's bedroom that it has been neutered. I would counter that this is clearly not the case. There is a balance between individual rights and societal rights. The trick is not to go too far in one direction. That is why we have courts.

The courts are a much more efficient path to change, that I'll concede freely. But when it comes to potentially undermining any of the Bill of Rights, I prefer the more formal process, where everybody has an opportunity to participate. Perhaps the term 'neutered' was a bit hyperbolic in practical terms, since people are still allowed to own 'some' arms, but ample precedent is now on the books that laws can be enforced that unquestioningly restrict the 'right to bear arms'. Now it's only a matter of time before hyperbole turns into reality. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you arm yourself.

Of course laws can be enforced which restrict the right to bear arms. One would have to be insane to desire otherwise. Do you want your neighbor mixing up a batch of ebola virus because it can be defined as "arms"? There is no such thing as an unrestricted right and there should not be.

 

[PratchettFan]

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

Thank you. So you agree the militia is controlled by the federal government. Now, read the Constitution.

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

As established under federal law. That is what you were quoting, federal law. What part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting? Have you read the Constitution yet?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you have ideas about other amendments you think might be explicitly deficient, I'd love to hear them, but that's probably best saved for another thread. Regarding the topic of this thread, yes, I'd rather see the 2nd Amendment rewritten than largely disregarded, as it currently stands.

I'm an all or nothing guy, you rewrite one you rewrite them all.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the several amendments that have been added, and some rewritten, since The Constitution was originally ratified. This might come as a surprise to you, but they don't all get rewritten every time.

Yes I am aware of that, but I don't recall of an amendment being rewritten in my life time.
If you touch the second might as well do the rest.

 

[PratchettFan]

America's founders were traitors. Treason would be doing something unconstitutional. Would assassinating American citizens without due process be treasonous?

<sigh> Is it really so difficult for Americans who talk so much about staying within the Constitution to actually take a little time to read it?

1. The founders were traitors
2. treason would be doing something unconstitutional
3. would depriving a citizen of his due process be treasonous?

Treason is defined by the Constituion. Read the Constituion.

 

[PratchettFan]

This only means that the court challenges havent yet to catch up to them, and as such, means nothing.

Do you disagree with the assertion that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of weapon protected by the 2nd?
Do you believe that 'assaul weapons' can be banned w/o violating the Constitution?

If so, please support your positon.

Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution. They are being banned without violating the Constitution. This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please. It is to support a well regulated militia. Well regulated. Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government. You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate. Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.

The courts have ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of suitable military use.

Which is why a sawed off shotgun was not protected. Now, show me where in that opinion did it say the government cannot limit what kind of weapons you keep?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thank you. So you agree the militia is controlled by the federal government. Now, read the Constitution.

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

As established under federal law. That is what you were quoting, federal law. What part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting? Have you read the Constitution yet?

Yes I am quoting federal law that say the unorganized militia consist of people who are not connected with the National Guard and the Naval Militia

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution. They are being banned without violating the Constitution. This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please. It is to support a well regulated militia. Well regulated. Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government. You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate. Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.

The courts have ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of suitable military use.

Which is why a sawed off shotgun was not protected. Now, show me where in that opinion did it say the government cannot limit what kind of weapons you keep?

It's quite clear when the ruling states of suitable military use. Do you understand what that means?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

<sigh> Is it really so difficult for Americans who talk so much about staying within the Constitution to actually take a little time to read it?

1. The founders were traitors
2. treason would be doing something unconstitutional
3. would depriving a citizen of his due process be treasonous?

Treason is defined by the Constituion. Read the Constituion.

I suggest you do the same. Read it before you try to have it rewritten.

 

[PratchettFan]

Here's a free lesson, well regulated in the time of the founders, referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.

The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.

The second amendment does not say

A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says

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 did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.

So, either you won't read the Constitution or you did and didn't like what you read. No worries. In this country you are free to be as wrong as you like. But I will do you a favor, just in case it is simple laziness...

Article I (Legislative Powers) Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article I Section 10

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Now seriously, what part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?

 

[PratchettFan]

1. The founders were traitors
2. treason would be doing something unconstitutional
3. would depriving a citizen of his due process be treasonous?

Treason is defined by the Constituion. Read the Constituion.

I suggest you do the same. Read it before you try to have it rewritten.

Ok, since you apparently won't or won't admit that you have:

Article III Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.

The words well regulated militia would mean exactly how the founders understood the words to mean. Well regulated does not mean now what it meant back then.

The second amendment does not say

A militia well regulated by Congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says

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 did not want to put the military might and control into the very hands they created the second amendment to prevent in the first place a tyrannical government.

So, either you won't read the Constitution or you did and didn't like what you read. No worries. In this country you are free to be as wrong as you like. But I will do you a favor, just in case it is simple laziness...

Article I (Legislative Powers) Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article I Section 10

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Now seriously, what part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?

I have read the constitution, I doubt you have. Do you also notice the federal government was supposed to go to the states to call up the militia if needed, not have a standing army and a militia.

 

[PratchettFan]

The courts have ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of suitable military use.

Which is why a sawed off shotgun was not protected. Now, show me where in that opinion did it say the government cannot limit what kind of weapons you keep?

It's quite clear when the ruling states of suitable military use. Do you understand what that means?

Yes, I do. Apparently, you don't. However, since you are not a judge that is not a problem.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Treason is defined by the Constituion. Read the Constituion.

I suggest you do the same. Read it before you try to have it rewritten.

Ok, since you apparently won't or won't admit that you have:

Article III Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

American military Action in Libya.