I will support the reinstatement of the 1994 'assault weapon ban' if...

[idb]

Easy.
The right to keep and bear arms encompasses more than just a counterbalance to government tyranny. The intent of the 2nd was to ensure that the people would always have access to the means to effectively project deadly force in the defense of their rights, exercised individually or collectively.

That would depend, I guess, on the interpretation of 'people' in the amendment.

You know this has been settled, right?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Fair enough.
I thought it was an interesting discussion...nothing more.

 

[catzmeow]

I don't support the ban.

 

[PaulS1950]

I support all our rights. I support them equally and for all our citizens. I do this because I know that if the government can take away even one part of any of our rights they will not be satisfied until they take them all.

 

[9thIDdoc]

There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.

The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.

You think starting a Civil war will not result in the deaths of a great many more innocents?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I won't support the renewal of the ban regardless of any evidence.
I already know that it violates the second amendment and that there is no way it can keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals. It is highly unlikely (never say never) that I will ever own an AR-15 or similar weapon (I am a reloader and I hate chasing brass) but I will fight to the death to support the right to own one. I will also fight to the death to support the 9 other rights that are listed in the Bill Of Rights. Why? It's quite simple, if government can take away or restrict one right they can do the same thing to all of our rights. These are supposed to be "God given rights" and the government, the last time I looked, hasn't become powerful enough to take power from him.

Spoken like a true conservative.

You’re a greater threat to Second Amendment rights than any ‘liberal gun-grabber.’

Otherwise, banning AR or AK/M semi-auto rifles would be un-Constitutional as they are clearly weapons ‘in common use at the time.’ They do not meet the criterion of a ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapon, such as those subject to NFA regulations. And the Court has held that the Second Amendment not only protects an individual right to own a firearm, but also the right to own modern weapons not in existence during the Foundation Era, where the right is unconnected to militia service.

But there’ll be no new ‘AWB,’ the political will is simply not there.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I won't support the renewal of the ban regardless of any evidence.
I already know that it violates the second amendment and that there is no way it can keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals. It is highly unlikely (never say never) that I will ever own an AR-15 or similar weapon (I am a reloader and I hate chasing brass) but I will fight to the death to support the right to own one. I will also fight to the death to support the 9 other rights that are listed in the Bill Of Rights. Why? It's quite simple, if government can take away or restrict one right they can do the same thing to all of our rights. These are supposed to be "God given rights" and the government, the last time I looked, hasn't become powerful enough to take power from him.

Spoken like a true conservative.

You’re a greater threat to Second Amendment rights than any ‘liberal gun-grabber.’

Otherwise, banning AR or AK/M semi-auto rifles would be un-Constitutional as they are clearly weapons ‘in common use at the time.’ They do not meet the criterion of a ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapon, such as those subject to NFA regulations. And the Court has held that the Second Amendment not only protects an individual right to own a firearm, but also the right to own modern weapons not in existence during the Foundation Era, where the right is unconnected to militia service.

But there’ll be no new ‘AWB,’ the political will is simply not there.

Simple question? IF a ban on semi automatic rifles and hand guns DOES occur, what will YOU do?

 

[JustTheFacts]

I won't support the renewal of the ban regardless of any evidence.
I already know that it violates the second amendment and that there is no way it can keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals. It is highly unlikely (never say never) that I will ever own an AR-15 or similar weapon (I am a reloader and I hate chasing brass) but I will fight to the death to support the right to own one. I will also fight to the death to support the 9 other rights that are listed in the Bill Of Rights. Why? It's quite simple, if government can take away or restrict one right they can do the same thing to all of our rights. These are supposed to be "God given rights" and the government, the last time I looked, hasn't become powerful enough to take power from him.

Spoken like a true conservative.

You’re a greater threat to Second Amendment rights than any ‘liberal gun-grabber.’

Otherwise, banning AR or AK/M semi-auto rifles would be un-Constitutional as they are clearly weapons ‘in common use at the time.’ They do not meet the criterion of a ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapon, such as those subject to NFA regulations. And the Court has held that the Second Amendment not only protects an individual right to own a firearm, but also the right to own modern weapons not in existence during the Foundation Era, where the right is unconnected to militia service.

But there’ll be no new ‘AWB,’ the political will is simply not there.

Simple question? IF a ban on semi automatic rifles and hand guns DOES occur, what will YOU do?

What will you do? Besides live aith of course. If the answer is anything more than elect people who will overturn it. Then you are giving the anti gun crowd all off the ammunition they could possibly need.

 

[Politico]

The Heller decision did not specify which guns were protected...

Save your breath - Jake is neither willing nor able to have this conversation to any worthwile degree.

That won't stop the ensuing 30 pages of nonsense and name calling.

 

[PaulS1950]

Since I have a right to keep and bear arms if they come to take them I will send them home.
It is not my place to judge them - that is left to God. I may facilitate the meeting though.
The founders of this great country knew that the people migt have to someday use arms to defend their rights. That is why we are supposed to have a militia in every state of the union. That is why we are supposed to have the same guns that the military has.
The founders also knew that we needed guns to hunt with and the means to trap and fish. They had no idea that target practice and competitions with arms would ever require a designated place to do it but we have those places for just such practice and competitions. Most of those competitions use military and ex-military arms. The competitors are military, police and private citizens competing to find out who shoots most accurately at 100 to 1000 meters. Make a guess as to who the top winners have been in the last three years........

 

[Zoom-boing]

There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.

The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.

Suppose she had no guns and her son committed this heinous act with a home made fertilizer bomb following directions he found on the interwebz. Should fertilizer and other things that go into making a home made bomb be banned? How about banning the interwebz? How about if he had gone in and macheted those poor kids? Or maybe poured gasoline all around the perimeter of the building, lit it on fire then tossed mazeltof cocktails through the windows? Should machetes, gasoline, glass bottles be banned?

 

[Dante]

... you can show:

1: It would have stopped the Newtown shooting
2: It will stop another Newtown shooting
3: Does not violate the 2nd amendment

If you cannot show thes ethree things, please explain why you support it.

Why the Newtown shooting?

There is no way to know

That is what we have a legislature for. The US House in in conservative hands, many of whom support a closer view to yours of the 2nd, than that of most gun control advocates. Do you have faith in your own gun advocates in the US House?

 

[Dante]

I won't support the renewal of the ban regardless of any evidence.

extremism and ignorance as a badge of honor

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are plenty of Americans who do support it now, Republicans too. You extremists just won't have a leg to stand on when it happens. Those babies did nothing to deserve what happened to them. The mother had the guns in a home where a mentally deranged child also resided and something must be done.

The assault weapons ban will happen, nobody is forgetting what happened to those kids.

Irrelevant

answer the OP.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1 and 2 are "if" and who knows.

3, such a ban will not violate the Constitution. Heller 1(F)

... you can show:

1: It would have stopped the Newtown shooting
2: It will stop another Newtown shooting
3: Does not violate the 2nd amendment

If you cannot show thes ethree things, please explain why you support it.

Unless Miller vs. US and Lewis vs. U.S. it will in fact violate the second amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Heller decision did not specify which guns were protected or allow for the confiscation of guns already legally owned. What the Heller decision covered was whether or not the second amendment applied to the district of Columbia - a federal enclave. The ruling was that it did.
The next ruling by the high court was the McDonald v. Chicago and it was a decision that the second amendment extended to all the states and not just federal enclaves. There has never been a ruling on what guns or under what conditions guns can be banned. There has never been a decision of what reimbursement must be made to owners of legal guns in the case of confiscation.
As a matter of fact there is one decision that stated that the second amendment does protect the rights to own a military weapon by the reason of the founders wanting the people to be able to protect the country from tyrany whether it was external or internal.
Therefore banning "assault weapons" is a clear violation of the intent of the second amendment.

Furthermore, if you empower the government to restrict or remove one part of the Bill of Rights you have opened the door to the restriction or removal of all of our rights. Would you like to lose your right to free speech? How about your freedom of religion? Would you like to be searched as you walk down the street? or have your home searched without a warrant?
Be very careful in what powers you give to your government. History shows us that very bad things happen when the government has more power than the people.
Eternal vigilance in the price of freedom.

Miller and Lewis has already said what weapons are protected by the second amendment.

 

[Dante]

1 and 2 are "if" and who knows.

3, such a ban will not violate the Constitution. Heller 1(F)

... you can show:

1: It would have stopped the Newtown shooting
2: It will stop another Newtown shooting
3: Does not violate the 2nd amendment

If you cannot show thes ethree things, please explain why you support it.

Unless Miller vs. US and Lewis vs. U.S. it will in fact violate the second amendment.

What did you predict about the court ruling on Obamacare?

and where did you stand on Obama/Biden 2012?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I correctly answered your poorly thought out question, which has nothing to offer at all to the issue.

You cannot show how a ban will not meet a compelling interest.

I guarantee you that SCOTUS will for you, however.

Silence for a moment and think, you moron.

Sooo..

You freely admit that you -cannot- show how the ban meets a compelling state interest and that you -cannot- show how a ban does not violate the Constitution.

Thank you for playing.

No you didn't you forgot about the precedence from Miller vs. US and Lewis vs. U.S.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1 and 2 are "if" and who knows.

3, such a ban will not violate the Constitution. Heller 1(F)

Unless Miller vs. US and Lewis vs. U.S. it will in fact violate the second amendment.

What did you predict about the court ruling on Obamacare?

and where did you stand on Obama/Biden 2012?

obamacare was rued unconstitutional, obamatax was not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Incorrect, one of the reasons for a well regulated militia is to put down insurrections.

Well regulated you dunce does not mean under government control. It means as to be expect in working order.

 

[Dante]

Unless Miller vs. US and Lewis vs. U.S. it will in fact violate the second amendment.

What did you predict about the court ruling on Obamacare?

and where did you stand on Obama/Biden 2012?

obamacare was rued unconstitutional, obamatax was not.

You predicted Robert's ruling?

What did you predict on constitutional scholar?

and what about the 2012 Presidential election? come on USMB know it all...tell us....refresh our memories