Federal Ban on Fully Automatic Assault rifles, and Sub- Machine guns, unconstitutional. And anti 2nd Amendment. Must be overturned by Supreme Court.!

[52ndStreet]

We all read the 2nd Amendment. " The right to bear arms must not be infringed upon. And a well maintained, and fully regulated States militia must be maintained." This Federal ban of Fully automatic weapons, can be considered an infringement.!!? The main weapons of a States militia man, is an Assault rifle.!, not semi automatic assault rifle. But we must have access to Fully Automatic Assault rifles. The Federal ban on Fully automatic weapons must be revoked.!!??

 

[frigidweirdo]

We all read the 2nd Amendment. " The right to bear arms must not be infringed upon. And a well maintained, and fully regulated States militia must be maintained." This Federal ban of Fully automatic weapons, can be considered an infringement.!!? The main weapons of a States militia man, is an Assault rifle.!, not semi automatic assault rifle. But we must have access to Fully Automatic Assault rifles. The Federal ban on Fully automatic weapons must be revoked.!!??

The 2A is a LIMIT on the federal govt (and now state govts).

What is the limit?

1)They cannot prevent individuals from having "arms"

So, if they ban assault rifles and sub machine guns, can people still get their hands on "arms"?

Sure they can.

Nukes are banned, SAMs are banned. You're not complaining about these.

The limit says "if you can't get a gun, then your right is being infringed upon", if these high powered weapons are taken from you, can you still get a gun? Yes you can.

2) They cannot prevent you from being in the militia.

But seeing how the militia is nothing, with the "unorganized militia" containing just about every adult, and they basically ignore it, they've managed to make this part of the Amendment pointless.

 

[52ndStreet]

The 2A is a LIMIT on the federal govt (and now state govts).

What is the limit?

1)They cannot prevent individuals from having "arms"

So, if they ban assault rifles and sub machine guns, can people still get their hands on "arms"?

Sure they can.

Nukes are banned, SAMs are banned. You're not complaining about these.

The limit says "if you can't get a gun, then your right is being infringed upon", if these high powered weapons are taken from you, can you still get a gun? Yes you can.

2) They cannot prevent you from being in the militia.

But seeing how the militia is nothing, with the "unorganized militia" containing just about every adult, and they basically ignore it, they've managed to make this part of the Amendment pointless.

My point is a Federal Ban on Fully Automatic Weapons is a kind of infringement. A well regulated and well maintained militia must be maintained. One of the weapons of a militia man, is a Fully automatic assault Rifle. Not semi automatic. Look around the world at militias. They use Fully automatic assault rifles. That's my point. Not semi automatic.!!?!!

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

We all read the 2nd Amendment. " The right to bear arms must not be infringed upon. And a well maintained, and fully regulated States militia must be maintained." This Federal ban of Fully automatic weapons, can be considered an infringement.!!? The main weapons of a States militia man, is an Assault rifle.!, not semi automatic assault rifle. But we must have access to Fully Automatic Assault rifles. The Federal ban on Fully automatic weapons must be revoked.!!??

If you don't mind the intrusive back ground checks and registrations you can buy pre-ban machine guns, but they are few and horrifyingly expensive.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My point is a Federal Ban on Fully Automatic Weapons is a kind of infringement. A well regulated and well maintained militia must be maintained. One of the weapons of a militia man, is a Fully automatic assault Rifle. Not semi automatic. Look around the world at militias. They use Fully automatic assault rifles. That's my point. Not semi automatic.!!?!!

Nope. The 2A does not demand that there is a well maintained militia. It merely says that it's a good idea. It does not put any pressure on the federal or state govts at all.

And the weapons in 2A do not have to be "militia weapons". It doesn't say there's a right to keep militia weaponry. There is an assumption that the weapons can be used in the militia. So, the govt cannot say "well, you can buy 18th century muskets, so you have you right". It has to be modern "arms", and hand guns are "modern arms".

Your point is what it is, but it's not right if it goes against what I'm explaining.

 

[candycorn]

We all read the 2nd Amendment. " The right to bear arms must not be infringed upon. And a well maintained, and fully regulated States militia must be maintained." This Federal ban of Fully automatic weapons, can be considered an infringement.!!? The main weapons of a States militia man, is an Assault rifle.!, not semi automatic assault rifle. But we must have access to Fully Automatic Assault rifles. The Federal ban on Fully automatic weapons must be revoked.!!??

I'm sure this current court will get to it.

The result?

More dead people.

Its bizarre but that is what conservatives have brought us to. Every other industrialized nation has solved this issue of gun violence (pretty much). Yet the most advanced nation on earth in many regards...is powerless to admit it even has a problem in much of the nation.

Sad...but true.

 

[fncceo]

Nukes are banned, SAMs are banned. You're not complaining about these.

I am ... I have all this weapons-grade plutonium going to waste in my garage.

 

[JGalt]

Black street thugs have no problems obtaining Glocks with switches and extended magazines, allowing them to shoot children on playgrounds in full auto.

So law-abiding citizens should also have the right to machine guns to protect themselves from the tyranny of criminality.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[JGalt]

Nope. The 2A does not demand that there is a well maintained militia. It merely says that it's a good idea. It does not put any pressure on the federal or state govts at all.

And the weapons in 2A do not have to be "militia weapons". It doesn't say there's a right to keep militia weaponry. There is an assumption that the weapons can be used in the militia. So, the govt cannot say "well, you can buy 18th century muskets, so you have you right". It has to be modern "arms", and hand guns are "modern arms".

Your point is what it is, but it's not right if it goes against what I'm explaining.

It doesn't say there isn't a right to keep modern military-grade weapons either.

Just as the First Amendment doesn't restrict free speech to 18th century hand-operated printing presses.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you don't mind the intrusive back ground checks and registrations you can buy pre-ban machine guns,

These conditions violate the constitution.

but they are few and horrifyingly expensive.

But not after the Hughes Amendment is struck/repealed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2A is a LIMIT on the federal govt (and now state govts).
What is the limit?
1)They cannot prevent individuals from having "arms"

False.
"They" cannot infringe in an individuals right to own and use firearms.

So, if they ban assault rifles and sub machine guns, can people still get their hands on "arms"?

"All bearable arms".
A ban on any "bearable arm" violates the constitution, regardless of the fact you have access to other "bearable arms".

Nukes are banned, SAMs are banned. You're not complaining about these.

These do not fall under "bearable arms" and thus are not protected by the 2nd.

The limit says "if you can't get a gun, then your right is being infringed upon", i

No. It says "shall not be infringed".
Things like demonstrating a need to carry and gun ans safe storage laws? Infringements.
The court created a test to see if a restriction is an infringement -- the result being most restrictions qualify as such.

f these high powered weapons are taken from you, can you still get a gun? Yes you can.

See 'all bearable arms", above.

2) They cannot prevent you from being in the militia.

"They" can, as you have no right to be in the militia.
98yr old wheel-chair bound women need not apply.

But seeing how the militia is nothing, with the "unorganized militia" containing just about every adult, and they basically ignore it, they've managed to make this part of the Amendment pointless.

It was always pointless; never has membership in the militia been a condition for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms/.

 

[frigidweirdo]

False.
"They" cannot infringe in an individuals right to own and use firearms.

"All bearable arms".
A ban on any "bearable arm" violates the constitution, regardless of the fact you have access to other "bearable arms".

These do not fall under "bearable arms" and thus are not protected by the 2nd.

No. It says "shall not be infringed".
Things like demonstrating a need to carry and gun ans safe storage laws? Infringements.
The court created a test to see if a restriction is an infringement -- the result being most restrictions qualify as such.

See 'all bearable arms", above.

"They" can, as you have no right to be in the militia.
98yr old wheel-chair bound women need not apply.

It was always pointless; never has membership in the militia been a condition for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms/.

They can't infringe on your right to own a weapon. If you legally own a weapon, they're not infringing on that right.

"Bear arms" in the 2A means "militia duty" "render militia service" etc.

SAMs are "bearable" but clearly the govt isn't going to allow them and the people don't seem to give a damn.

But nothing suggests that the arms need to be "bearable". Look at the militia and see what arms they have. Tanks, planes with loads of missiles and the like. Not going to happen.

No, membership in the militia is not required to own a gun, nor to have a right to be in the militia. However before men could demand to be in the militia, now they can, and it'll be in the "unorganized militia" which has never, ever done anything and never will.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They can't infringe on your right to own a weapon. If you legally own a weapon, they're not infringing on that right.

Restating this does not make it true.
-The court held that demonstrating a need to carry and gun is an infringement.
-The court held that the legal requirement to secure a gun is an infringement.
In both cases you could still legally own a gun, in both cases your right to do so was infringed.
Thus, your standard, above, has no factual or legal basis.

The court created a test to see if a restriction is an infringement -- the result being most restrictions qualify as such.

"Bear arms" in the 2A means "militia duty" "render militia service" etc.

You have no factual or legal basis for this statement.

SAMs are "bearable"

The term is "bearable arms"
The term means "any firearm in common use for traditional lawful purposes"
This excludes SAMs, et al.

But nothing suggests that the arms need to be "bearable".

You have no factual or legal basis for this statement.

Look at the militia and see what arms they have.

That's the NG.
The NG is a federal force, a federal reserve component, and created under the congressional power to raise armies.
Thus, not militia.

Further:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

This means "bearable arms" does not include tanks, SAMS and nukes.

No, membership in the militia is not required to own a gun, nor to have a right to be in the militia. However before men could demand to be in the militia, now they can, and it'll be in the "unorganized militia" which has never, ever done anything and never will.

Meaningless mumbo jumbo.

 

[whitehall]

Be careful what you wish for (or troll for). Automatic weapons are legal to purchase with the proper permits. It's ironic that Clinton massacred about 80 men women and children with tanks and poison gas because the ATF assumed the Branch Davidians were converting old rusty WW2 junk into fully automatic weapons. Nobody seemed to care that there wasn't a shred of evidence to support the claim.

 

[progressive hunter]

We all read the 2nd Amendment. " The right to bear arms must not be infringed upon. And a well maintained, and fully regulated States militia must be maintained." This Federal ban of Fully automatic weapons, can be considered an infringement.!!? The main weapons of a States militia man, is an Assault rifle.!, not semi automatic assault rifle. But we must have access to Fully Automatic Assault rifles. The Federal ban on Fully automatic weapons must be revoked.!!??

"a well regulated militia" is what we need

"being necessary to the security of a free state" is why we need it

"the right if the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is how we get it


being a militia provides their own arms, it wouldnt make sense for them to not have access to equal arms to defend the country from an invading force foreign or domestic,,

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If you don't mind the intrusive back ground checks and registrations you can buy pre-ban machine guns, but they are few and horrifyingly expensive.

I have always wanted to get a Tommy gun just for collectors' purposes. I would never actually want to go out and shoot it, but they start at a few thousand dollars.

 

[progressive hunter]

Be careful what you wish for (or troll for). Automatic weapons are legal to purchase with the proper permits. It's ironic that Clinton massacred about 80 men women and children with tanks and poison gas because the ATF assumed the Branch Davidians were converting old rusty WW2 junk into fully automatic weapons. Nobody seemed to care that there wasn't a shred of evidence to support the claim.

a lot of people care,,

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I have always wanted to get a Tommy gun just for collectors' purposes. I would never actually want to go out and shoot it, but they start at a few thousand dollars.

The semi-automatic replicas maybe, but for an original full auto your looking at a low end of around 20k. A while back the St. Louis PD found a bunch of Thompsons in their storage and sold them for 45k a piece.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

We all read the 2nd Amendment. " The right to bear arms must not be infringed upon. And a well maintained, and fully regulated States militia must be maintained." This Federal ban of Fully automatic weapons, can be considered an infringement.!!? The main weapons of a States militia man, is an Assault rifle.!, not semi automatic assault rifle. But we must have access to Fully Automatic Assault rifles. The Federal ban on Fully automatic weapons must be revoked.!!??

The tax on nfa weapons is unconstitutional.