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

[Lesh]

Between the two of us...it is not I who sounds insane

Why? You want central government control of firearms, I think everyone has the right to own and bear arms. You believe in Marxism apparently and that is insane.

I believe it is and should be a LOCAL/STATE issue

 

[Resnic]

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.

I love my guns but you're wrong.

The constitution doesn't say must be armed with assualt weapons, and when it was written we didn't even have rifling in gun barrels.

What constitutes well armed is purely subjective. It could be shotguns and long rifles, or just pistols. Could be anything.

Make no mistake if they can have something bad enough happen where they can scare an assualt weapon ban out of people they will do it and it won't be unconstitutional because we will still have other guns.

 

[Leo123]

I believe it is and should be a LOCAL/STATE issue

Yeah, LOCAL/STATE central government control. You're such a Marxist tool it's so painfully obvious.

 

[Leo123]

I love my guns but you're wrong.

The constitution doesn't say must be armed with assualt weapons, and when it was written we didn't even have rifling in gun barrels.

What constitutes well armed is purely subjective. It could be shotguns and long rifles, or just pistols. Could be anything.

Make no mistake if they can have something bad enough happen where they can scare an assualt weapon ban out of people they will do it and it won't be unconstitutional because we will still have other guns.

There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon' designation. As we have been discussing here, ANYTHING can be an assault weapon. We need to question Marxist terminology in the first place. We let it go and the predominately leftist media spread the propaganda. It is very useful to remind the gun-phobia crowd that guns are actually inanimate objects.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Second Amendment does not require any specific "organization" of The Militia.

At the time the Constitution already defined the organization and training requirements of the States Militia's to Congress while leaving up the work of training and setting up the Militia to the Governors of each state. All citizen were expected to participate.

Amendment II.

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.

US Constitution,
Article 1 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;"

As a side note, they didn't provide the citizen soldiers with personal weapons, they were expected to provide them themselves.

 

[BlindBoo]

when it was written we didn't even have rifling in gun barrels.

Not to mention modern bullets.

 

[Leo123]

But they are regulated in a way that makes them exceedingly rare. We should probably do that for assault weapons at least huh?

Exceeding rare for law abiding citizens....Criminals don't care much. You can bet the Cartels have plenty auto firing weapons.

 

[BrokeLoser]

That's right. Keep trying to tell me what I think. It's immensely entertaining.

I’m just calling you out on being a closet LefTard, a sneaky tard…did I offend you by exposing you?

 

[miketx]

Not to mention modern bullets.

So what? What does that matter to deflecting lying commies like you?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I’m just calling you out on being a closet LefTard, a sneaky tard…did I offend you by exposing you?

Why would it offend me?

 

[Rigby5]

I love my guns but you're wrong.

The constitution doesn't say must be armed with assualt weapons, and when it was written we didn't even have rifling in gun barrels.

What constitutes well armed is purely subjective. It could be shotguns and long rifles, or just pistols. Could be anything.

Make no mistake if they can have something bad enough happen where they can scare an assualt weapon ban out of people they will do it and it won't be unconstitutional because we will still have other guns.

Wrong.
All rifles always had rifled barrels.
The British were still using the smoothbore BrownBess musket, but the American Continental Army was mostly using rifled barrels, like the Kentucky Long Rifle, made in Pennsylvania.
The problem of rifling is that you had to ram the bullet down harder than with a smooth bore musket.
So to repeat, smoothbore is a musket, and a rifle has rifling.

And NO, what is protected by the 2nd amendment is what ever the best military grade is, because the whole point was to ensure the private citizens were ready to act as the Militia if an army was need to be quickly brought to bear.
The US was to have a volunteer citizen soldier military, and not paid, professional, mercenaries, who can not be trusted.
It is impossible to read the 2nd amendment and not see that any and all federal firearms laws are completely illegal.
We can argue about state laws, but not federal.
The 2nd amendment is a blanket prohibition on any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I love my guns but you're wrong.

The constitution doesn't say must be armed with assualt weapons, and when it was written we didn't even have rifling in gun barrels.

What constitutes well armed is purely subjective. It could be shotguns and long rifles, or just pistols. Could be anything.

Make no mistake if they can have something bad enough happen where they can scare an assualt weapon ban out of people they will do it and it won't be unconstitutional because we will still have other guns.

Not only were there rifled muskets when the Constitution was written, there were breech loading muskets.

Besides, the 2nd Amendment doesn't have jackshit to do with being in the militia. The existence of the militia is the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Why would it offend me?

Most closet tards like Mac1958 are just wise enough to know they should be ashamed of their alignment with the Left….they get all pissed when they can no longer mask their Leftistism.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Most closet tards like Mac1958 are just wise enough to know they should be ashamed of their alignment with the Left….they get all pissed when they can no longer mask their Leftistism.

K.

 

[Rigby5]

"Common use" was not part of the 2A. It was some fiction Scalia used to decouple gun rights FROM the 2A.

But they are regulated in a way that makes them exceedingly rare. We should probably do that for assault weapons at least huh?

I agree. That should be the within the realm of the states, not the Federal government

Actually almost all guns are at least semi-automatic, and actually semi-automatic firearms have to add lots of additional parts to prevent full auto.
Full auto is what the gun wants to do naturally, and the parts that make is semi-auto are easy to take out by anyone who is intent on major crimes.

The current regulations by the BATF do not make full auto rare, but just expensive.
About 6 times as much.
But the feds only require a $200 full auto tax stamp.

And we seem to agree that it should be a state or local issue, not federal.

 

[Rigby5]

My argument is NOT based on Scalia's fiction.

Let's see if you can follow.

The 2A bans any federal action related to the use/sale/manufacture of arms. That's it.

You can throw around all the bullshit you want, but that is a fact.

Scalia was too chickenshit to state what he knew at the time -- The 1934 NFA and everything since is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Why was he so chickenshit? THE RESULT. We get machine guns and you can't stop it.

I am far left, but agree totally.
There should be zero federal weapons laws.

 

[Rigby5]

Not so necessary now huh...

Always necessary, because all governments always become more and more corrupt over time, and after 400 years or so, have to be over turned.

 

[Lesh]

Always necessary, because all governments always become more and more corrupt over time, and after 400 years or so, have to be over turned.

Then turn over YOUR government...in Moscow

 

[Rigby5]

That makes no sense

Sure it does.
Individual arms can be used for a federal Militia, a state militia, a municipal posse, or just to protect your own individual house.
The need for all people to have firearm access is not predicated on the needs of a federal Militia.

 

[FA_Q2]

.... the thread is a year old.

Why are we resurrecting it?