Assault weapons ban lifted?

[Restola]

Originally posted by shartley

But if it says "Cars are important to society, the right to drive cannot be taken away" that is different.

"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."

Like I said before, you can read that two ways:

"A well regulated militia is nessesary for the security of a free state and is the only time the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

"A well regulated militia is nessesary for the security of a free state, therefore the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Both interpretations require you to take some liberty, because it simply isn't 100% clear.

[Army]

MaChu, There are 170,000+ Class III license owners in the USA. Those citizens can legally purchase and posess fully automatic weapons. Since 1934, fully automatic weaponry has been severely restricted for private ownership. Of those hundreds of thousands of fully automatic weapons in the hands of private citizens, only ONE (1), has been connected to anything criminal since 1934. The alledged crime, was to have his weapon in a locked case, in the locked trunk of his car as he became embroiled in a "Domestic Disturbance" with his ex-wife. He lost his license because of the unrelated "crime", which he knew would happen. You can't violate ANY laws as a Class III holder.

Which goes to show you, that law abiding citizens are not the problem, but only the law abiding are forced to comply with Draconian anti-gun laws.


BTW, most LE depts do not have full auto weapons. 4 years ago, I helped convert 127 M16's to semi only for our county Sheriffs.

[Rooster]

"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. "


You know, this moron is right. From now on, Free speech only applies to white men above the age of 21 that own property. That includes me, so it suits me just fine.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Rooster
You know, this moron is right. From now on, Free speech only applies to white men above the age of 21 that own property. That includes me, so it suits me just fine.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now that's FUNNY!

[Collegeboy]

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Rooster
"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. "


You know, this moron is right. From now on, Free speech only applies to white men above the age of 21 that own property. That includes me, so it suits me just fine.

But for that to be false, you have to believe in a living constitution that can be interpreted differently depending on the times.

[Matt_mg]

we'd have convicted murderers running about with assault rifles

This one is so funny, don't convicted people go to jail in the States? anyway those who escape or are liberated don't have that kind of money, so they steal their weapons, what difference is a class 3 liscence going to do?

My view on that is that gun laws don't reduce crime, they just make less room for firearm deaths and more to bladed weapons related deaths... I mean seriously if you hate someone so bad as you want to risk giving up your freedom (aka landing in prison) by killing/wouding him well damn, a shovel, knife, ice pick, spork anything will do! *in Canada this is supported by statistics, duh...

I remember that one time where a guy had a knife under someone's throath in the stairs going down to the subway, how would YOU react collegeboy? If I could wear a pistol in this damned pinko country I would have pulled it on that jackass and politely asked him to drop the knife (if your'e going to ask someone anything at gun point might as well add please ).

Any laws regulating weapons is ridiculous and besides who never dreamed of playing sporting clays with a m-60 huh? :P

[pbzmag]

Originally posted by Army
BTW, most LE depts do not have full auto weapons. 4 years ago, I helped convert 127 M16's to semi only for our county Sheriffs.

The only time I came across a full-auto was when I was in a firearms class though Pasadena City College. The weapons and teachers were curtesy of the Pasadena Police. It was a M-4 that was converted to accept 9mm rounds. Fun to shoot but not the same as shooting 5.56 rounds.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Matt_mg


I remember that one time where a guy had a knife under someone's throath in the stairs going down to the subway, how would YOU react collegeboy? If I could wear a pistol in this damned pinko country I would have pulled it on that jackass and politely asked him to drop the knife (if your'e going to ask someone anything at gun point might as well add please ).

Who said I was against guns?

[Army]

CB, very wrong on the use/term of the Militia as it applies to the F&R and Revo wars and now. The militia was not, nor ever has been, a pool for the military to draw from. Men were recruited as volunteers back then, and paid with some coin and allowed to keep their uniforms and kit afterwards (what is funny, is they used the "see the world, get paid well" spoo that is still in use )

The Militia has always been the local force that would gather in "regulated" formation to defend their town or crossing. They would arm themselves with whatever weapon that they had, yes even pitchforks. Remember, it was the Militia that met the British regulars at Concord Bridge and Lexington, not the Continental Army. Farmers and merchants, not uniformed soldiers...or any sort of soldier for that matter.

Sam, the Militia did NOT become the NG, or logically we would be called the National Militia. This is a commonly held misbelief. The Militia Act of 1792, requires CITIZENS to be called to duty in the event of national need. These citizens were required by law, to arm themselves with no funds from the federal govt. Part of the arming requirement, was to eventually acquire the current issued, or used, proper calibered musket of the regular army....and 28 rounds of shot

The Dick Act of 1903 clarified the role of the National Guard (which really came about during the Civil War as an established military collective), which would provide and establish a military force to supply and supplement state and federal needs for combat personnel. These NG members would be signed to a contract, and trained in accordance with current military standards with issued weapons and equipment. In 1916 the Dick Act was amended to include pay for NG members, and even in 1973 the Act was again amended, to integrate the NG with the Army with the Total Force Policy. This makes NG members the irregular Army.

The Militia past and present, are not trained nor outfitted until the federal calls, and they still must outfit themselves. The National Guard only replaced the Militia as the citizen reserve force. Replaced it, but didn't eliminate it.

The 2nd Amendment is the Constitutional Law that insures that the Militia will have arms available for service to country.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Army
Sam, the Militia did NOT become the NG, or logically we would be called the National Militia. This is a commonly held misbelief. The Militia Act of 1792, requires CITIZENS to be called to duty in the event of national need. These citizens were required by law, to arm themselves with no funds from the federal govt. Part of the arming requirement, was to eventually acquire the current issued, or used, proper calibered musket of the regular army....and 28 rounds of shot

The Dick Act of 1903 clarified the role of the National Guard (which really came about during the Civil War as an established military collective), which would provide and establish a military force to supply and supplement state and federal needs for combat personnel. These NG members would be signed to a contract, and trained in accordance with current military standards with issued weapons and equipment. In 1916 the Dick Act was amended to include pay for NG members, and even in 1973 the Act was again amended, to integrate the NG with the Army with the Total Force Policy. This makes NG members the irregular Army.

The Militia past and present, are not trained nor outfitted until the federal calls, and they still must outfit themselves. The National Guard only replaced the Militia as the citizen reserve force. Replaced it, but didn't eliminate it.

The 2nd Amendment is the Constitutional Law that insures that the Militia will have arms available for service to country.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


But for that to be false, you have to believe in a living constitution that can be interpreted differently depending on the times.

or just ammendments?

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


or just ammendments?

Since there haven't been any to the second.

Army, I must disagree. Take alook if you can find them at the souces I provided you with.

[mcveighr]

This illegal law should have been lifted a long time ago.

What about the patriot act?

[shartley]