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

[BlindBoo]

I understand that you believe an individual has the money, technology, and will to light millions of dollars and people on fire to use said weapon, but WHOLE ******* COUNTRIES can't get nukes.

Let's knock off the bullshit hyperbole.

If a souldier would carry it in battle...I ******* GET IT TOO!!!

And I will do ANYTHING to restore the right to its fullest extent WITHOUT RESTRICTION.

The second Amended doesn't specify what weapons the people are allowed or not allowed to have is the argument I heard. So you draw a line at Nuclear Weapons?

 

[Open Bolt]

The second Amended doesn't specify what weapons the people are allowed or not allowed to have is the argument I heard. So you draw a line at Nuclear Weapons?

The Second Amendment doesn't expressly define what weapons are covered, but the right to have weapons for collective defense would naturally focus on those weapons that are appropriate for collective defense, and the right to have weapons for private self defense would naturally focus on the sorts of weapons that are appropriate for private self defense.

 

[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 Constitution doesn't say anything of the kind. The Constitution reads:

"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." There is no right of gun ownership for personal defence in the Constitution, only national defence.

The Militia Act of 1903 established the National Guard and ended the use of militias for the defence of states. The Second Amendment should have been repealed at that time, and has been unnecessary since the National Guard was established.

Washington disbanded his army after the Revolutionary War so at the time the 2nd Amendment was passed, there was no standing army. Militias really were your ONLY line of defence. As gun ownership became less and less necessary, gun makers have become more and more aggressive in pushing paranoia and "freedom", than safety and good governance.

 

[Flash]

Somebody misunderstands the 1st.....

FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8–0) the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I understand you think the Constitution allows you to have your own personal nuclear weapon but......

This is always a stupid issue. The NRC controls who can get nuclear material.

As far as other advanced weapon system. You would have to be very very rich to afford any weapon system above small arms. Training and maintenance would be a killer for almost anything. You would pretty much have to be mega millionaire to afford a fighter jet or missile system and the maintenance on it would be extensive. A billionaire for a really advanced system.

 

[BlindBoo]

This is always a stupid issue. The NRC controls who can get nuclear material.

As far as other advanced weapon system. You would have to be very very rich to afford any weapon system above small arms. Training and maintenance would be a killer for almost anything. You would pretty much have to be mega millionaire to afford a fighter jet or missile system and the maintenance on it would be extensive. A billionaire for a really advanced system.

Yep, we can only afford those advanced technologies collectively. It has put to rest the idea of a Citizens Militia taking up small arms against the Government of the people.

 

[Open Bolt]

The Constitution doesn't say anything of the kind.

Actually it does. A well regulated militia is one that is well armed and well trained. The Second Amendment mandates that the militia be well regulated.

There is no right of gun ownership for personal defence in the Constitution, only national defence.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects the entire right to keep and bear arms, not just part of it.

The right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their homes.

Washington disbanded his army after the Revolutionary War so at the time the 2nd Amendment was passed, there was no standing army. Militias really were your ONLY line of defence.

They made a conscious choice to have militias instead of a standing army. They could have kept a standing army instead of relying on the militia had they wanted to do so.

 

[Flash]

Yep, we can only afford those advanced technologies collectively. It has put to rest the idea of a Citizens Militia taking up small arms against the Government of the people.

Except for the fact the Supreme Court said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual rights so you can go **** yourself.

 

[BlindBoo]

Except for the fact the Supreme Court said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual rights so you can go **** yourself.

Sorry Sparky, when the activist judges plucked that right from the second amendment, did they say it was an unlimited right?

 

[Flash]

Sorry Sparky, when the activist judges plucked that right from the second amendment, did they say it was an unlimited right?

So what did they limit?

Be specific.

 

[BlindBoo]

So what did they limit?

Be specific.

A newly manufactured fully automatic assault rifle.

Machine Guns & 50 Caliber Weapons

Machine guns, trigger activators, and bump stocks can cause destruction. The government does not regulate all military-grade firearms.

giffords.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

A newly manufactured fully automatic assault rifle.

In which ruling(s) did the court uphold the prohibtions on these firearms?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Militia Act of 1903 established the National Guard and ended the use of militias for the defence of states. The Second Amendment should have been repealed at that time, and has been unnecessary since the National Guard was established.

But, it wasn't. Sorry.

Washington disbanded his army after the Revolutionary War so at the time the 2nd Amendment was passed, there was no standing army.

The US army has been in continuous service since 1775.

 

[M14 Shooter]

**** you, jacketed bullets and other technological improvements over time made a cumbersome muzzle loading weapon into a hand held killing machine that was unimaginable at the time the Bill of Rights was conceived.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[BlindBoo]

In which ruling(s) did the court uphold the prohibtions on these firearms?

Have they struck down the law as unconstitutional?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Have they struck down the law as unconstitutional?

He asked you what the court limited.
You gave examples.
For your examples to be -actual- examples, the court must have -actually- limited them.
If you can't cite the rulings, then your examples do not meet the challenge he put to you.
Thus, the question:
In which ruling(s) did the court uphold the prohibitions on these firearms?

 

[BlindBoo]

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Maybe they do but that is not mine. Mine is that the art (technology) of war has advanced beyond the citizen soldier of the revolutionary era. But so has society. Back then every Tom Dick and Harriet was not a voting citizen who was obliged to own a fire arm and join the local Militia and train. It was mostly White property owners. Now nobody has to join a militia, and every Tom Dick and Harriet can buy a modern fire arm. But not military grade, which is okay with me.

But this is an old thread..............

 

[Mac1958]

"A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"​

Right. A state militia. Maintained and well regulated.

Just like it says.

Not the Wild West.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe they do but that is not mine.

"Yours" is irrelevant.
"All insturments that constitute bearable arms" is the binding legal standard.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"​

Right. A state militia. Maintained and well regulated.
Just like it says.
Not the Wild West.

Talk to your state legislature.
Talk to your congressman.

 

[Open Bolt]

Sorry Sparky, when the activist judges plucked that right from the second amendment, did they say it was an unlimited right?

Upholding the law and the Constitution like the court did in Heller isn't activism. People have a clear right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.