Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[Billy_Kinetta]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

“The People” is confusing to you?

Nope. At the time it was mostly white male property owners who were required to join their local Militia and most had to furnish their own weapons.

Too ******* bad. 2A Isnt going anywhere.

What other ammendments do you think should be abolished? 1st?

Nobody wants to do away with the 2nd. That is bullshit spewed by the NRA You know, that gun nut organization that is bankrupt because the top gun nuts stole your money?

You do know that they are not the only pro-2nd Amendment support group, yes?

But they are the largest, and spend more money buying right wing politicians than most of the others combined.

You think 2A supporters are bought?

 

[BULLDOG]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

“The People” is confusing to you?

Nope. At the time it was mostly white male property owners who were required to join their local Militia and most had to furnish their own weapons.

Too ******* bad. 2A Isnt going anywhere.

What other ammendments do you think should be abolished? 1st?

Nobody wants to do away with the 2nd. That is bullshit spewed by the NRA You know, that gun nut organization that is bankrupt because the top gun nuts stole your money?

You do know that they are not the only pro-2nd Amendment support group, yes?

But they are the largest, and spend more money buying right wing politicians than most of the others combined.

You think 2A supporters are bought?

I know right wing politicians are bought.

 

[Dragonlady]

Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense

Banning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.

And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.

Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.

Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’

Only because of Heller. Heller invalidated all previous rulings and it itself could just as well be invalidated

And that may at some point happen – for now Heller/McDonald constitute current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s telling to note that conservatives have come to loathe Heller as well, this thread being proof of that.

Second Amendment absolutists on the right have nothing but contempt for Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm, and that citizens have no right to posses any type of weapon they want or to carry weapons anywhere they wish.

Conservatives also continue to propagate this wrongheaded nonsense about ‘militias’ contrary to the Court’s holding that the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with militia service, in or out of a state's national guard.

"...that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm,"

Not "all manner..."; the court only noted that some reasonable limitations are not considered "infringement". Infringement remains unconstitutional and has not been fully defined by the SC. The 2nd plainly states that the government does NOT have the authority to infringe on that right of the people.

The state infringes on that right all of the time. Convicted felons are not allowed to own firearms. In the southern states blacks weren’t allowed to own guns. In the 1930s the Thompson machine gun was banned.

And those who think that owning a weapon will protect them from “Tyranny” should shown the video of what happened to the Branch Davidians when they try to protect themselves from the Tryanny of the government.

 

[Dragonlady]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

“The People” is confusing to you?

Nope. At the time it was mostly white male property owners who were required to join their local Militia and most had to furnish their own weapons.

Too ******* bad. 2A Isnt going anywhere.

What other ammendments do you think should be abolished? 1st?

Nobody wants to do away with the 2nd. That is bullshit spewed by the NRA You know, that gun nut organization that is bankrupt because the top gun nuts stole your money?

You do know that they are not the only pro-2nd Amendment support group, yes?

But they are the largest, and spend more money buying right wing politicians than most of the others combined.

You think 2A supporters are bought?

No we think that they’ve been brainwashed and turned into paranoid zombies by the NRA with lies about Democrats coming to take their guns.

Your proof positive of that.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

“The People” is confusing to you?

Nope. At the time it was mostly white male property owners who were required to join their local Militia and most had to furnish their own weapons.

Too ******* bad. 2A Isnt going anywhere.

What other ammendments do you think should be abolished? 1st?

Nobody wants to do away with the 2nd. That is bullshit spewed by the NRA You know, that gun nut organization that is bankrupt because the top gun nuts stole your money?

You do know that they are not the only pro-2nd Amendment support group, yes?

But they are the largest, and spend more money buying right wing politicians than most of the others combined.

You think 2A supporters are bought?

I know right wing politicians are bought.

You think left wing politicians are not?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

“The People” is confusing to you?

Nope. At the time it was mostly white male property owners who were required to join their local Militia and most had to furnish their own weapons.

Too ******* bad. 2A Isnt going anywhere.

What other ammendments do you think should be abolished? 1st?

Nobody wants to do away with the 2nd. That is bullshit spewed by the NRA You know, that gun nut organization that is bankrupt because the top gun nuts stole your money?

You do know that they are not the only pro-2nd Amendment support group, yes?

But they are the largest, and spend more money buying right wing politicians than most of the others combined.

You think 2A supporters are bought?

No we think that they’ve been brainwashed and turned into paranoid zombies by the NRA with lies about Democrats coming to take their guns.

Your proof positive of that.

I'm not the least worried that Democrats will come to get my guns. It will all be over long before they get around to me.

 

[Lesh]

You think 2A supporters are bought?

2A Republicans legislators are bought and you know it

 

[9thIDdoc]

Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense

Banning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.

And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.

Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.

Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’

Only because of Heller. Heller invalidated all previous rulings and it itself could just as well be invalidated

And that may at some point happen – for now Heller/McDonald constitute current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s telling to note that conservatives have come to loathe Heller as well, this thread being proof of that.

Second Amendment absolutists on the right have nothing but contempt for Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm, and that citizens have no right to posses any type of weapon they want or to carry weapons anywhere they wish.

Conservatives also continue to propagate this wrongheaded nonsense about ‘militias’ contrary to the Court’s holding that the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with militia service, in or out of a state's national guard.

"...that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm,"

Not "all manner..."; the court only noted that some reasonable limitations are not considered "infringement". Infringement remains unconstitutional and has not been fully defined by the SC. The 2nd plainly states that the government does NOT have the authority to infringe on that right of the people.

The state infringes on that right all of the time. Convicted felons are not allowed to own firearms. In the southern states blacks weren’t allowed to own guns. In the 1930s the Thompson machine gun was banned.

And those who think that owning a weapon will protect them from “Tyranny” should shown the video of what happened to the Branch Davidians when they try to protect themselves from the Tryanny of the government.

What part of:
"Not "all manner..."; the court only noted that some reasonable limitations are not considered "infringement"." do you not understand? Any local and State laws that the SC finds to be infringement remain unconstitutional and therefore void and there are many in place that will be struck down when the SC gets around to addressing them. Neither you nor I determine what infringement is in a legal sense; that is the job the SC.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

You think 2A supporters are bought?

2A Republicans legislators are bought and you know it

Bought how and for what purpose?

 

[Lesh]

Bought how and for what purpose?

Bought by the NRA and gun manufacturers to sell more guns. This is news to you?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Bought how and for what purpose?

Bought by the NRA and gun manufacturers to sell more guns. This is news to you?

Do you doubt the reality that the representatives you claim are bought simply agree with the NRA's positions? If so, what is your rationale?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Bought how and for what purpose?

Bought by the NRA and gun manufacturers to sell more guns. This is news to you?

The NRA doesn't buy guns; people do. Helps the economy. Obama was a great gun salesman and Biden threatens to be even better.

 

[BULLDOG]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

“The People” is confusing to you?

Nope. At the time it was mostly white male property owners who were required to join their local Militia and most had to furnish their own weapons.

Too ******* bad. 2A Isnt going anywhere.

What other ammendments do you think should be abolished? 1st?

Nobody wants to do away with the 2nd. That is bullshit spewed by the NRA You know, that gun nut organization that is bankrupt because the top gun nuts stole your money?

You do know that they are not the only pro-2nd Amendment support group, yes?

But they are the largest, and spend more money buying right wing politicians than most of the others combined.

You think 2A supporters are bought?

I know right wing politicians are bought.

You think left wing politicians are not?

Not by the NRA.

 

[Rigby5]

Let's just stop the NRA propaganda now.

An assault rifle is a concept that came out of WWII and it was a hybrid rifle designed for assault troops.

They reduced the size of the full rifle cartridge (still larger and more powerful than a handgun cartridge) so that the recoil would be less (allowing more rapid controlled firing) and the ability to carry more ammo.

It is a weapon of war...designed for war. It is not a hunting weapon. It is not the best or only weapon for home defense (shotguns and pistols are at least equally effective).

Gun humpers claim that since it can only fire semi-auto that it is not a weapon of war. Bullshit. I served and qualified with it. We NEVER used the full auto feature of the military version. There was no need to. It would fire as fast as you could twitch your finger with such low recoil that you didn't lose your point of aim.

In fact the full powered rifle M-1 Garand (used in WWII) was only semi-auto. NO one argues that IT was not a weapon of war.

In fact the M-14 was designed around the M-1 concept but had full auto capacity. It was abandoned because the recoil made firing in anything more than SLOW semi-auto mode was an exercise in futility.

So just stop.

You want to argue the exact definition? Fine. Semi-auto magazine fed. You think that might apply to hand guns? It doesn't have to but if you wanna be assholes, include any weapon that is magazine fed and semi-auto.

That still leaves plenty of revolvers and shot guns and bolt action rifles available for hunting, target practice, and self defense

Banning semi-auto handguns would in fact be un-Constitutional per Heller.

And bolt-action rifles and carbines can likewise be designated as weapons of war – from the M1903 to the M40, for example.

Consequently, using ‘weapon of war’ to determine whether a firearm is entitled to Constitutional protections has no basis in law.

Moreover, given the fact that ‘militia service’ is not part of the consideration with regard to the Second Amendment right, in conjunction with the truism that all firearms are the progeny of weapons of war – including revolvers and shotguns – the only constitutionality valid criterion to establish if a weapon is within the scope of the Second Amendment is a finding that the weapon is ‘in common use.’

Only because of Heller. Heller invalidated all previous rulings and it itself could just as well be invalidated

And that may at some point happen – for now Heller/McDonald constitute current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s telling to note that conservatives have come to loathe Heller as well, this thread being proof of that.

Second Amendment absolutists on the right have nothing but contempt for Scalia’s reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm, and that citizens have no right to posses any type of weapon they want or to carry weapons anywhere they wish.

Conservatives also continue to propagate this wrongheaded nonsense about ‘militias’ contrary to the Court’s holding that the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with militia service, in or out of a state's national guard.

"...that government in fact has the authority to place all manner of limits and restrictions on the possession of a firearm,"

Not "all manner..."; the court only noted that some reasonable limitations are not considered "infringement". Infringement remains unconstitutional and has not been fully defined by the SC. The 2nd plainly states that the government does NOT have the authority to infringe on that right of the people.

The state infringes on that right all of the time. Convicted felons are not allowed to own firearms. In the southern states blacks weren’t allowed to own guns. In the 1930s the Thompson machine gun was banned.

And those who think that owning a weapon will protect them from “Tyranny” should shown the video of what happened to the Branch Davidians when they try to protect themselves from the Tryanny of the government.

The denial of felons from having arms is federal and not state, and many states over over ridden that federal law and DO allow felons to be armed anyway.
{... The 1968 Federal Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. ...}
The southern states denying Blacks firearms was one of the reasons for the 14th Amendment, and the states were over ruled on this illegal restriction.
The Thomson machinegun was not banned, but made more difficult and expensive.
The Branch Davidians had no protection from tyranny because their cause was just not very sympathetic.
The rumors of underage sex branded Koresh, and religious cults have a bad reputation in general.
Owning a weapon most certainly would be the only possible way of dealing with a tyranny, but it does not mean open conflict. It would mean an insurgency using stealth, assassination, terrorism, sabotage, or any other method possible.
Tyranny is never to be allowed or accepted, no matter the methods or cost.

 

[Rigby5]

Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.

 

[BULLDOG]

Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.

I've been through lots of hurricanes. Rita completely destroyed my house. I've always owned guns, but I've never needed a one for self defense.

 

[Rigby5]

Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.

I've been through lots of hurricanes. Rita completely destroyed my house. I've always owned guns, but I've never needed a one for self defense.

It is not when your house is destroyed that you need firearms.
It is when the whole food chain is disrupted for weeks, people start to get hungry, and you live in a crowded urban environment.

 

[BULLDOG]

Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.

I've been through lots of hurricanes. Rita completely destroyed my house. I've always owned guns, but I've never needed a one for self defense.

It is not when your house is destroyed that you need firearms.
It is when the whole food chain is disrupted for weeks, people start to get hungry, and you live in a crowded urban environment.

You've been watching too many post-apocalyptical movies.

 

[Lesh]

Anyone who does not have arms is a fool.
Statistically everyone will need one at least 2.5 times in their lives.
The police have probably never once arrived in time to actually stop a crime in progress.
All governments go corrupt and have to over turned eventually.
Any locality can be hit with a temporary emergency, like Katrina.

Nonsense. I have walked this planet for 66 years and never needed a gun. And I have lived and worked in the NYC metro area and worked in the city a lot of that time

 

[Lesh]

The Thomson machinegun was not banned, but made more difficult and expensive.

And that is the reason almost no one is killed by them. Oh and you forgot that machine guns made after 1986 are totally banned.

This should be true of ARs as well. In fact it WAS true for ten years just a few decades ago