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 government doesn't even have a militia presently ("not having a militia" also violates the Constitution).
-----------------------------------------------
Well form some damn militias and pass regulations on them
That is not what well regulated means.
A well regulated militia is one that is well armed and well trained.
-----------------------------------------------
STUPID ****. The 2A refers to a right of the PEOPLE, free and clear of the government, to carry and bear arms against the GOVERNMENT, and you think it is the right of the government to carry out armies. Show us where it says that here:
www.nationalguard.com
or here:
en.wikipedia.org
The National Guard is not the militia since they are part of a standing army.
However, the government is responsible for organizing the militia.
Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
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;
-----------------------------------------------
A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?
Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
-----------------------------------------------
Nowhere in the Second Amendment does that short paragraph say a, "State Militia." It does say that, "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." It does not state that the militia is formed by the state, only that a well-regulated militia can be formed from the civilian population, using their own weapons, to protect that state from an enemy.
The founders recognized that the major players that helped the Continental Army win the war against England, were the "private" citizens who formed "their own regulated militias" and, who defended their states, while on occasions working in conjunction with the Continental Army. But, they were not officially state militias, only private citizens that formed groups using guerilla tactics to beat the British Army.
Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
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;
-----------------------------------------------
Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".
If the government were to bring back the militia, militiamen would have the right to have full-auto weapons. Grenades and bazookas too.
No previous ruling will change that fact.
-----------------------------------------------
You may not know where you are going but its clear to most gun owners
you will kill the 2nd one tiny step at a time till all the guns are gone just as they are in most other countries
Well, they will certainly try.
They will fail.
The NRA will continue to protect the Second Amendment.
-----------------------------------------------
Yes and since the National guard handles 100% of all militia duties in this country the Second amendment logically means that you're not allowed on a gun unless you sign up with the National guard
Not even close. Nothing limits gun ownership to only militiamen.
In fact, non-militiamen have an express right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.
-----------------------------------------------
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.
First, those are not assault weapons bans. Assault weapons were all but banned some 88 years ago.
What was banned in the 1990s was a bunch of ordinary guns that merely had harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips on them.
Second, banning a gun simply because it has a harmless cosmetic feature on it is very much unconstitutional. The fact that Congress violated everyone's rights in the 1990s and some states do it even today doesn't make it OK to do so.
Some governments in the Middle East get away with committing genocide. That doesn't mean that they are not committing a crime.
-----------------------------------------------
Totally not true.
Number one. The right to keep arms is, in fact, a limit on the US federal govt (and now state govts). This means that the US federal govt (and now state govts) cannot prevent you from owning arms.
They can prevent you from having nukes, SAMS, tanks and other weaponry, as long as individuals can own "arms" then they can limit which arms they can have.
"assault rifles" can be banned, and individuals can still "keep arms".
The militia needs weapons with enough firepower to allow them to repel foreign invasions.
Denying them weapons with that level of firepower is a violation of the Second Amendment.
