Assault weapons ban lifted?

[m-98]

Well, if we interpret the Constitution literally we can only have muzzle loading muskets and cannons because that is all they had back then. If we interpret it loosely then I sould be able to own tanks, F-16s, battle ships etc. They are all arms.

Edit: looks like someone beat me.

[Restola]

Originally posted by m-98
The 2nd states that a well formed militia has the right to bear arms, not necessarily an individual.

Your opinion.

The Consitution (read it sometime)
"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."

You read that to mean "A well regulated militia is nessisary for the security of a free state and is the only time the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I read it to mean "A well regulated militia is nessisary for the security of a free state, therefore the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Restola]

Originally posted by m-98
Well, if we interpret the Constitution literally we can only have muzzle loading muskets and cannons because that is all they had back then.

lol ignorance at it's best...

[davidb]

Originally posted by m-98
Well, if we interpret the Constitution literally we can only have muzzle loading muskets and cannons because that is all they had back then. If we interpret it loosely then I sould be able to own tanks, F-16s, battle ships etc. They are all arms.

Edit: looks like someone beat me.

First off, I'm not sure we would agree on this issue..

Second, you have it backwards. If we interpret strictly literally, then we have the right to own military hardware. If we interpret loosely, then somebody gets to choose what the intent of the founders was, or would be if they were here today, or whatever.

[Collegeboy]

The law does not say that we are taking away the right of the people to be armed. It says that they may not be armed with these types of weapons.

For you to believe that law is unlawful, you must also think that any law that stops a person from acquiring nuclear materials, or modern day US military equipment is also unlawful.

The law is legal, for you are still able to arm yourself with weapons.

End of story, like it or not.

(Waiting for someone to say that I am trolling)

[Restola]

I guess our difference of opinion lies in you think as long as the people can bear any arms, say a toothpick, the federal government can take away as many other weapons as it wants.

I disagree, and so do millions of others.

Its not the end of the story.

[Army]

OK, the so-called Brady Assault Weapons Ban will sunset in Sept 2004. President Bush said he will only sign it, if a majority of Congress/Senate pass the extension. Congrees/Senate have given no indication at this late date to even consider re-upping the law, and most have said they would not pass it again. WOOHOO! I can break out my 30 round magazines again!

The 2nd Amendment is about ARMS. That means guns, swords, knives, pitchforks, clubs with spikes, axes, hatchets and such things you would or could go into a battle with. Yes, this covers the future of weapons and arms development. Those men weren't stupid, they lived enough to know that things progress as life goes on. BTW, military arms development was quite advanced and changing with tactics.

The "regulated Militia" referrence is about being trained in drill and command structure, it's NOT about being regulated by laws. The 2nd also states that the right to BEAR (not BARE) arms "shall not be infringed". That means that the Govt. CANNOT pass laws keeping weapons and arms from the people, nor ban a certain type because they are scary looking. The Militia by all definitions, is made up of the PEOPLE, specifically, all able bodied men of certain age. THe definitions further clarify that these people/men are NOT of the established government military departments.

The Brady Bill is nothing more than a total infringment. Police records PROVE that semi-automatic weapons are NOT the choice of bad guys, REGARDLESS of what you read in the papers. Remember, an "Assault Rifle" by definition, MUST have the ability to switch from semi, to fully automatic firing capability. FBI records show that brady bill listed weapons, are used in less that 1/10 of 1% of all firearm crimes. Obviously there wasn't a crime problem with them, only that they scared Mrs. Brady.

[FESTUS33]

Originally posted by m-98


It is, I'm basically saying that the Constitution was written 200 years ago and how do we know exactly what a certain part means.

It Was Written With the Intention that as Citizen's We would Have Enough Sense to Interprate it in a Way that Fit's Us As A Society!
Rick

[FactsOfLife]

two things for you people who seem to be sorely lacking in Constitutional history.

1. The militia was and is solely constituted of the PEOPLE.

That means you and me.

Do you really think that the writers who argued about every word in that document for months suddenly decided to change their minds about the word People with that single word mentioned so many other times in personal rights not generally argued about today?

You must be living in The Boys world to believe that.

2. the Constitution is NOT a living document. It was not, nor has it EVER been intended to be "...Written With the Intention that as Citizen's We would Have Enough Sense to Interprate it in a Way that Fit's Us As A Society!"

Quite the contrary, it is OUR responsibility to fit OUR lives to the way that document was written.

Unfortunately with the huge number of judges that sit on the benches of our legal system who now write law, instead of what they're supposed to be doing, interpreting law, we've lost sight of that fact to a large extent.

As for the legalities of the 2nd, there are a TON of Supreme Court rulings that show unequivocably that it is indeed a PERSONAL right and NOT a state or federal right.

[Restola]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
2. the Constitution is NOT a living document. It was not, nor has it EVER been intended to be "...Written With the Intention that as Citizen's We would Have Enough Sense to Interprate it in a Way that Fit's Us As A Society!"

While I absolutely agree with that statement, the problem is you'll immediately hear "what about slavery?". Somehow that single issue is supposed to undermine the entire Constitution?

I'm still at a loss how the federal government has found in the Constitution the right for them to create a welfare-state, illegalize drugs, enforce legalized abortion, and many more things.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Apparently they don't teach the 10th amendment in politician school. Or maybe I'm just not reading hard enough.

[PyRo]

Originally posted by m-98
Well, if we interpret the Constitution literally we can only have muzzle loading muskets and cannons because that is all they had back then. If we interpret it loosely then I sould be able to own tanks, F-16s, battle ships etc. They are all arms.

Edit: looks like someone beat me.

Oh God
If you had enough money you likely could have an F-16, a tank and a battle ship, you just wouldn't get any of the weapons/weapons system. Hell after WWII did'nt they sell surplus airplanes, dissarmed of course?

[ramennoodles]

the second amendment states that you shall have the right to bare arms, i does not state that you have the right to bear the arm of your choosing, just because its a weapon doesn't mean we have a right to own it, if they banned you from owning anything but a sword they could get away with it because it is still an arm and they are not forfeiting that right of yours.

[Collegeboy]

[PyRo]

Ok, I have a right to bear arms it doesn't say what kind, this means I can have whatever I want. If I have some cool anti aircraft gun, and you come and say nope you cannot have that. You are taking away my arms correct? Now I have a right to bear arms, you are taking away my arms, therefore infriging on my constitutional rights.

[ramennoodles]

no i would only be infiNging upon your rights if i took away all of your arms. think about if there were no limits on guns, we'd have convicted murderers running about with assault rifles, now i don't think you would want that and i know i don't want that.