Assault weapons: Questions for those that would ban them

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Do you know the difference between firearms and explosives? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

The word firearm is found NOWHERE in the Second Amendment. I assume you realize that.

But the word AMRS in 18th century verbage is a FIREARM

 

[TheBrain]

What the anti seconders fail to see is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hopefully they will see it now.

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Do you know that the superme court has ruled many times that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are military grade weapons?

Sure, I also know that the Court can change its ruling at ANY time. I also know that not all military grade weapons are protected, can't own a tank for instance.

 

[Ringel05]

Mostly because to make such an admission would be to lie.

Now, rather than run to the meaningless defense of a fraud, how about addressing the OP?

She did address it.

No... I meant for YOU address it, not her.

Your perception of her is the issue here...

No, the issue here was presented in the OP.
So far, not a single person has attempted to address the questions asked - not even those poeple that would have 'assault weapons" banned.

She was in agreement with you that the ban was a bad thing. Obviously you couldn't or wouldn't see that. Oh well......

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Do you know that the superme court has ruled many times that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are military grade weapons?

Sure, I also know that the Court can change its ruling at ANY time. I also know that not all military grade weapons are protected, can't own a tank for instance.

No they can't The bench cannot legislate from the bench. Only Congress can change an amendment to the constitution

 

[uscitizen]

A firearm as protected by the second amendment does not include strategic weapons, neither airplanes or nuclear bombs, No bazookas either or missiles.

Where is the limit stated? I mean seriously if we can just arbitrarily say bazookas aren't protected by the 2nd amendment why can't we also say that automatic rifles aren't ?

First, automatic rifles are not under consideration in this topic.
Second, automatic rifles fall under the defijnition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd.

Yep as long as they are muzzle loading.

 

[TheBrain]

Do you know that the superme court has ruled many times that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are military grade weapons?

Sure, I also know that the Court can change its ruling at ANY time. I also know that not all military grade weapons are protected, can't own a tank for instance.

No they can't The bench cannot legislate from the bench. Only Congress can change an amendment to the constitution

Actually no Congress can't change an Amendment, not by themselves anyway. And I was talking about interpreting an Amendment, which the Court certainly can do.

 

[Missourian]

Do you know the difference between firearms and explosives? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

The word firearm is found NOWHERE in the Second Amendment. I assume you realize that.

But the word AMRS in 18th century verbage is a FIREARM

^ What he said.

Arms was a term for edged weapons and firearms...cannons and explosives were termed "artillery".

 

[Ringel05]

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Do you know that the superme court has ruled many times that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are military grade weapons?

Sure, I also know that the Court can change its ruling at ANY time. I also know that not all military grade weapons are protected, can't own a tank for instance.

You can't? I'll have to tell some of my friends that. I guess they'll have to turn theirs into the BATF along with their bazookas, Ma Dueces, land mines, etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where is the limit stated? I mean seriously if we can just arbitrarily say bazookas aren't protected by the 2nd amendment why can't we also say that automatic rifles aren't ?

First, automatic rifles are not under consideration in this topic.
Second, automatic rifles fall under the defijnition of "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd.

Yep as long as they are muzzle loading.

Yes. Just like tapping cell phones doesn't require a warrant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you have the right to own a tactical nuclear weapon? Just yes or no for now will suffice.

Do you know that the superme court has ruled many times that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are military grade weapons?

Sure, I also know that the Court can change its ruling at ANY time.

This has been addressed. You could respond to it.

I also know that not all military grade weapons are protected, can't own a tank for instance.

I know three poeple that own a tank.

 

[M14 Shooter]

She did address it.

No... I meant for YOU address it, not her.

Your perception of her is the issue here...

No, the issue here was presented in the OP.
So far, not a single person has attempted to address the questions asked - not even those poeple that would have 'assault weapons" banned.

She was in agreement with you that the ban was a bad thing.

You -obviously- don't understand the issue presented in the OP.

That's OK - neither does Jillian.

 

[Ringel05]

No... I meant for YOU address it, not her.


No, the issue here was presented in the OP.
So far, not a single person has attempted to address the questions asked - not even those poeple that would have 'assault weapons" banned.

She was in agreement with you that the ban was a bad thing.

You -obviously- don't understand the issue presented in the OP.

That's OK - neither does Jillian.

Obviously? How about simply don't give a shit. Works for me.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure, I also know that the Court can change its ruling at ANY time. I also know that not all military grade weapons are protected, can't own a tank for instance.

No they can't The bench cannot legislate from the bench. Only Congress can change an amendment to the constitution

Actually no Congress can't change an Amendment, not by themselves anyway. And I was talking about interpreting an Amendment, which the Court certainly can do.

Any change to the Constitution would have to go through Congress and not the bench

interpreting an Amendment, which the Court certainly can do

interpreting is just a ccode word for legislating from the bench.

 

[pinqy]

What I find even more amusing than the ridiculous assault weapons ban is the dual status of the Mare's Leg. As popularized in the 60's by Steve McQueen in Wanted: Dead or Alive, it's a Winchester Model 1892 using 44-40 ammo, sawed down to a 12 in barrell and a cut down butt stock. As a sawed off rifle, it falls under the National Firearms Act and must be registered, for $200, with ATF. You can buy one at Eagle Squadron Productions.

BUT, there's another version. J.B. Custom sells a version that is built from the ground up, not sawed down, so is classified as a lever action pistol and not subject to federal regulation. Rossi also sells a pistol version but .45 caliber.

How on earth does this make sense to anyone that you can have two weapons, identical in every specification, and one requires registration and a fee, while the other does not, solely on the basis that one originally had a longer barrell and full butt stock?

I have no problem with reasonable gun laws, but they should make some sense, which this and the assault weapon ban do not.

 

[TheBrain]

No they can't The bench cannot legislate from the bench. Only Congress can change an amendment to the constitution

Actually no Congress can't change an Amendment, not by themselves anyway. And I was talking about interpreting an Amendment, which the Court certainly can do.

Any change to the Constitution would have to go through Congress and not the bench

interpreting an Amendment, which the Court certainly can do

interpreting is just a ccode word for legislating from the bench.

That may be your opinion, but the founding fathers disagree which is precisely why they devised a system that included a Court who's sole province is to interpret the COTUS and the Constitutionality of laws in this country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

She was in agreement with you that the ban was a bad thing.

You -obviously- don't understand the issue presented in the OP.

That's OK - neither does Jillian.

Obviously? How about simply don't give a shit. Works for me.

Either way - you're talking out your backside.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I find even more amusing than the ridiculous assault weapons ban is the dual status of the Mare's Leg. As popularized in the 60's by Steve McQueen in Wanted: Dead or Alive, it's a Winchester Model 1892 using 44-40 ammo, sawed down to a 12 in barrell and a cut down butt stock. As a sawed off rifle, it falls under the National Firearms Act and must be registered, for $200, with ATF. You can buy one at Eagle Squadron Productions.

BUT, there's another version. J.B. Custom sells a version that is built from the ground up, not sawed down, so is classified as a lever action pistol and not subject to federal regulation. Rossi also sells a pistol version but .45 caliber.

How on earth does this make sense to anyone that you can have two weapons, identical in every specification, and one requires registration and a fee, while the other does not, solely on the basis that one originally had a longer barrell and full butt stock?

Jillian, the lawyer, could answer this. If she were a lawyer, that is.

The same thing can be said about this:
Super Shorty
Because the gun came from the factory w/ only a pistol grip and no stock, it is not a sawed-off shotgun and is therfore not subject to the $200 NFA transfer tax.

The simple answer to the question:
In the eyes of the law, once a rifle, always a rifle, once a shotgun, always a shotgun, once a pistol always a pistol.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually no Congress can't change an Amendment, not by themselves anyway. And I was talking about interpreting an Amendment, which the Court certainly can do.

Any change to the Constitution would have to go through Congress and not the bench

interpreting an Amendment, which the Court certainly can do

interpreting is just a ccode word for legislating from the bench.

That may be your opinion, but the founding fathers disagree which is precisely why they devised a system that included a Court who's sole province is to interpret the COTUS and the Constitutionality of laws in this country.

This is false.
The power of judicual review was not given to the court by the Constitution; prior to Marbury, the court heard exactly -0- cases that dealt with interpreting the Constitution.
In fact, most cases it has heard since Marbury have nothing to do with such things.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Actually no Congress can't change an Amendment, not by themselves anyway. And I was talking about interpreting an Amendment, which the Court certainly can do.

Any change to the Constitution would have to go through Congress and not the bench

interpreting an Amendment, which the Court certainly can do

interpreting is just a ccode word for legislating from the bench.

That may be your opinion, but the founding fathers disagree which is precisely why they devised a system that included a Court who's sole province is to interpret the COTUS and the Constitutionality of laws in this country.

Sorry that your opinion leads you to believe this way. But it is true interpreting the law is just a code word for legislating from the bench. Justice Sonia Sotomayor can attest to this as a true statement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

STILL no attempt to address the OP.

Curious.