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

[Open Bolt]

The only legitimate militia is the National Guard, which is under the command of government.

That is incorrect. The National Guard are part of a standing army. They are not the militia.

Only a duly-elected government has the authority to establish the regulations necessary for a "well regulated" militia and maintain it well.

It is not regulations that make a well regulated militia. It is equipment and lots of training.

It is impossible for any other group, gang, club, whatever, to establish legitimacy because it cannot show that it has the approval of the state's citizens to represent them. It cannot be self-appointed or self-authenticating.

Agreed.

 

[miketx]

Why not move to Cuba already?

They kill queers down there.

 

[Open Bolt]

And no you are not guaranteed the right to military grade weapons.

Military grade weapons were all but outlawed some 88 years ago, and are not a factor in today's society.

One mass shooter in the mid-West shot 30 people in 30 seconds with an AR15 a couple of years ago. Those guns should not be on the streets,

That is incorrect. There is nothing particularly dangerous about the AR-15, and there is no reason to restrict them.

Any other semi-auto/pump/lever rifle would be just as dangerous if it had a large magazine attached to it.

I'm thinking the Founders would be shocked and horrified and what has happened to the USA as a result of the 2nd Amendment.

So far the only thing that has happened as a result of the Second Amendment is: progressives have been prevented from violating people's civil liberties.

The Framers would count that as a win.

A militia is defined as "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". You have to be a member of a "well regulated militia" to have unfettered access to weapons under the Second Amendment.

Ordinary people have the right to have enough firepower for effective self defense.

That would be the National Guard,

That is incorrect. The National Guard is part of a standing army. They are not militia.

so if you're Guard Member, you get to have a gun, but otherwise, not so much.

That is incorrect. Ordinary people have the right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

Well that's the dumbest reason ever for leaving them on the streets.

Here's a better reason: They are ordinary weapons that there is no reason to ban.

There's a lot of mass killers using them to murder hundreds of innocent people, too.

Those people would be just as dead if they were killed with a different weapon.

Which argument is more compelling? Saving lives, or letting people have their fun?

"Saving lives" does not apply when the proposed gun ban would not save any lives.

 

[Open Bolt]

I've been waiting for a long time for someone to explain to me what an "assault weapon" actually is.

What is an 'assault weapon'?

Assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

b) accept detachable magazines,

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.

 

[Open Bolt]

What are you talking about? There is no right to form private militias of Individuals of the People.

Freedom of association allows people to form groups. Freedom of speech allows groups to refer to themselves as militia.

it only proves the right wing has nothing fallacy of appeals to ignorance.

The right has the US Constitution on their side. History as well.

 

[FA_Q2]

Agreed.

The you would both be incorrect.

Well regulated had a distinct meaning when the second was penned. It meant in proper working order. In the context here it may even be construed to mean a familiarity with the weapon or a generalized common type of weaponry.

The one thing it cannot mean is well trained in war considering the militia was not to be a force of military members of any kind.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Assault weapons:

a) are capable of either full-auto or burst-fire,

b) accept detachable magazines,

c) fire rounds that are less powerful than a standard deer rifle, and

d) are effective at a range of 300 meters.


This means that semi-auto-only guns are not assault weapons.

This means that guns with fixed magazines are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire rounds equal-to or greater-than the power of a standard deer rifle are not assault weapons.

This means that guns that fire handgun/shotgun/rimfire rounds are not assault weapons.

Yeah, I understand the definition, but to me all firearms are 'assault weapons'. Like, if I shoot you, consider yourself assaulted. In the worst kind of way.

 

[frigidweirdo]

-----------------------------------------------

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.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

 

[Open Bolt]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no,

I'm afraid not. The right to be armed for collective defense means enough firepower for collective defense.

The right to be armed for self defense means enough firepower for self defense.

 

[Open Bolt]

The one thing it cannot mean is well trained in war considering the militia was not to be a force of military members of any kind.

The militia's duties include suppressing insurrections and repelling foreign invasions.

Repelling foreign invasions is definitely military in nature.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm afraid not. The right to be armed for collective defense means enough firepower for collective defense.

The right to be armed for self defense means enough firepower for self defense.

Did I mention NO?

 

[Open Bolt]

Wrong.
The "left" follows what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment, unlike far too many on the right.

That is incorrect. The left continually try to violate the Second Amendment.

Wrong
No state's firearm regulatory measures violates the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court having never invalidated such measures.

The fact that the Supreme Court has not struck down unconstitutional laws does not mean that they are not unconstitutional.

This is a lie.

That is incorrect. Mac-7 has correctly stated the intentions of progressives.

Whatever a lawmaking body says it is.

When lawmaking bodies concoct fraudulent definitions, that does not change what words actually mean.

Wrong.

BrokeLoser isn't wrong either. Oppressive regulation can indeed effectively be a ban.

All the above measures are perfectly Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

A civil liberties violation is a civil liberties violation even if the courts have not remedied it yet.

A law or measure is presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see US v. Morrison (2000)).

It is perfectly appropriate to denounce unconstitutional laws even before they are struck down.

 

[Open Bolt]

Did I mention NO?

The Constitution overrules you.

 

[Open Bolt]

So?
We already have that.
It's called the National Guard.

That is incorrect. The National Guard are part of a standing army. They are not militia.

It is not unconstitutional to ban assault weapons.
Clinton did it when he was president. The law lasted 10 years. The bush boy was president when it ended with the republicans in control of the congress so they didn't renew the law.

Those are not assault weapons. They are ordinary rifles with harmless features like pistol grips.

And no, it is in fact unconstitutional to ban them.

The fact that progressives have a history of maliciously violating people's civil liberties does not mean it is not a violation.

Clinton already banned assault weapons but the law only lasted 10 years.
It expired when the bush boy was president with his republican controlled congress so they didn't renew it.
The nra already challenged an assault weapons ban in the Clinton years and it was ruled constitutional.

Those were not assault weapons. They were ordinary rifles that there is no justification for banning.

The fact that progressives got away with maliciously violating people's civil liberties for ten years does not mean it was not a violation.

As was established decades ago, we already have a well armed militia for each state. It's called the National Guard. Every state has their own National Guard that the governor of the state controls.

That is incorrect. The National Guard are part of a standing army. They are not the militia.

Those who served in the National Guard were sent to Vietnam by the presidents at the time.
The bush boy sent the Guard to is wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is because the National Guard are part of a standing army and are not militia.

Had the National Guard been militia, it would be unconstitutional to send them overseas.

No the state militia has absolutely no use for an assault weapon.

That is incorrect. That is exactly the sort of weapon that they have a use for.

The National Guard is trained on fully automatic weapons in basic training.

Yes. And the militia has the right to have the same sorts of weapons.

No where is an assault weapon in existence in the National Guard.

That is incorrect. The National Guard uses M-16s, which are assault weapons.

They have absolutely no use or patience for those pea shooters you idiots with a small penis you're trying to over compensate for use.

Childish name-calling is a poor substitute for a well informed argument.

In fact, those of us who are or were honestly in a state militia laugh at you idiots with you assault weapons. You people are nothing but a joke.

You've never served in a militia because there hasn't been a militia for a hundred years.

 

[FA_Q2]

The militia's duties include suppressing insurrections and repelling foreign invasions.

Repelling foreign invasions is definitely military in nature.

It is.

That is not the point. The militia is made up of all able bodied men that are not in military service. By its very nature, the militia is not trained in warfare. The idea is that the greatest force the nation has is the common people themselves.

You do not need to be trained in warfare to eject an invading force, you simply need to have the means to make subjugation an impossibility.

 

[Open Bolt]

Wherein is such a requisite inscribed in law?

In the part of the Constitution that says that part of the militia's duties includes repelling foreign invasions.

Clearly militiamen are not going to be able to repel a foreign invasion without full-auto weapons, grenades, and bazookas, etc.

In the absence of any such statutory specificity, one might similarly opine that a weapon of a "State militia" is a cow patty.

Not an appropriate weapon for repelling a foreign invasion.

Any "civilian" can just declare himself a "militia" without American society having a legal means of protecting itself?

Correct. Freedom of speech.

I declare myself the Emperor of the Andromeda Galaxy.

See how easy it is?

For over 200 years, the conventional view was that the first clause of the Second Amendment limited the second clause.

That is incorrect. That is a recent creation of progressives who want to violate people's civil liberties.

The right to keep and bear arms was for the purpose of maintaining a militia.

That is one purpose of the right. Another purpose is people having guns for the private defense of their homes.

That traditional view changed in 2008, when the Supreme Court transferred the right to the individual

The Supreme Court has always ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Despite the false claim of absolutists and extremists, the Court did not say that all gun control is unconstitutional.
The public support for sensible restrictions to curtail the firearm permissiveness in America is sanctioned under law.

That doesn't make it OK to violate the Second Amendment.

The Heller opinion was written by Antonin Scalia for a 5-4 majority. The self-proclaimed “strict constructionist” ignored the literal text and long-standing precedent, opining that there was an unstated “pre-existing right” to bear arms for self-defense, not just for use in a militia.

That is incorrect. He upheld the text and long-standing precedent.

It is true that there are parts of the Second Amendment that he did not uphold (the parts about the militia). But upholding part of the Second Amendment was still a big step forward compared to not upholding any of it at all.

Scalia did acknowledge in regard to gun control laws, “Some undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time the Constitution was written …"

“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed.
What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”

The existence of limitations does not make it OK to violate people's rights.

The undeniable reality is that regulation of firearms is constitutional. As Antonin Scalia observed follow D.C. v. Heller, "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”
I.e., the public has a right to safety,

Public safety cannot justify gun laws that have nothing to do with public safety.

and opinion matters in democratic self-governance.

Not when it comes to our civil liberties.

The controversy is a political one, not a constitutional one,

When progressives try to violate the Constitution, that's a Constitutional issue.

and the scandal-plagued political lobbyist, the NRA, is now largely impotent, as it was in the 2020 election. The bankrupt special-interest pressure group's capacity to crush the will of the People has been greatly diminished.

Fake news.

Five did, in 2008,

That is incorrect. They merely started upholding part of the Second Amendment.

but I don't see the Court restoring the traditional interpretation anytime soon.

The conventional interpretation has already been restored. That is what they were doing in 2008.

Having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia is clearly a determinant concerning militia.

A reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia only applies for military weapons like grenades and bazookas.

People have the right to have self defense weapons regardless of their militia status.

Given that the "assault weapon" as we now define it did not exist in 1939, and given that the right to bear arms had not been extended by the Court beyond a militia to apply to the citizenry until 2008, and given that Justice Scalia had noted at that time that "some limitations that can be imposed," and "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time” makes it clear that revision predicated upon changing technology and societal understanding is eminently applicable.

Perhaps.

The general concepts of collective defense and private self defense remain the same though.

Militiamen will always have the right to have weaponry appropriate for collective defense.

Everyone else will always have the right to have weaponry appropriate for private self defense.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Constitution overrules you.

Oh, YOUR interpretation of the Constitution overrules the actual Constitution huh?

Nonsense. You can't even prove that to be the case.

 

[Open Bolt]

Oh, YOUR interpretation of the Constitution overrules the actual Constitution huh?

No. My interpretation of the Constitution is not in conflict with the actual constitution.

You are the one who is proposing interpretations that conflict with what is written.

Nonsense. You can't even prove that to be the case.

I can prove that the Constitution is in conflict with your proposals.

Not allowing the militia to have the sort of arms that they need to do their job directly conflicts their right to be armed so that they can do their job.

 

[Open Bolt]

The militia is made up of all able bodied men that are not in military service.

Agreed.

By its very nature, the militia is not trained in warfare. The idea is that the greatest force the nation has is the common people themselves.

I think the Framers intended to train everyone. They made provisions for training people for militia duty.

You do not need to be trained in warfare to eject an invading force, you simply need to have the means to make subjugation an impossibility.

Training certainly helps.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No. My interpretation of the Constitution is not in conflict with the actual constitution.

You are the one who is proposing interpretations that conflict with what is written.



I can prove that the Constitution is in conflict with your proposals.

Not allowing the militia to have the sort of arms that they need to do their job directly conflicts their right to be armed so that they can do their job.

You can't prove your own assertation then?

And your "proof" isn't proof at all, it's just YOUR OPINION>