Constitutional scholar says second amendment was for individual and guns in common use.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundo (weapons, free speech)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When they wrote the 2nd amendment it was assumed that all freemen would already have the guns they were supposed to bring whenever the local Militia was mustered for training or war. The writers assumed it was not necessary to specify that "to keep and bear arms" was an individual preexisting right because, like free speech, it already was.
Very few "Assault Weapons" are used by criminals because it is nearly imposible to conceal a short rifle with a 30 round magazine.
If the 2nd was supposed to protect only guns "in common usage", all the govt would have to do is pass a law putting very heavy restrictions, taxes etc. on some particular gun or class of guns. Then, years later, when those restrictions have crushed the gun or guns out of civilian hands, the govt can say, "Look, that gun isn't in common usage (any more), so it's not covered by the 2nd amendment and we can ban it."
The govt LOVES to hear people say that the 2nd covers guns that are only in comon usage. Gives them carte blanche to ban anyting they want, given a little patience.
BTW, since this scholar is so scholarly, did she name the actual part of the 2nd amendment that excludes any guns NOT "in common usage"?
If the 2nd was supposed to protect only guns "in common usage", all the govt would have to do is pass a law putting very heavy restrictions, taxes etc. on some particular gun or class of guns. Then, years later, when those restrictions have crushed the gun or guns out of civilian hands, the govt can say, "Look, that gun isn't in common usage (any more), so it's not covered by the 2nd amendment and we can ban it."
The govt LOVES to hear people say that the 2nd covers guns that are only in comon usage. Gives them carte blanche to ban anyting they want, given a little patience.
BTW, since this scholar is so scholarly, did she name the actual part of the 2nd amendment that excludes any guns NOT "in common usage"?
kind of hard to do those proposals when most firearms owners own at least a few misnamed military lookalike assault rifles.
how will the feds ban something that most people own? go from house to house and confiscate them? do that once or twice and shooting will start when they go to the next home looking to confiscate.
If the 2nd was supposed to protect only guns "in common usage", all the govt would have to do is pass a law putting very heavy restrictions, taxes etc. on some particular gun or class of guns. Then, years later, when those restrictions have crushed the gun or guns out of civilian hands, the govt can say, "Look, that gun isn't in common usage (any more), so it's not covered by the 2nd amendment and we can ban it."
The govt LOVES to hear people say that the 2nd covers guns that are only in comon usage. Gives them carte blanche to ban anyting they want, given a little patience.
BTW, since this scholar is so scholarly, did she name the actual part of the 2nd amendment that excludes any guns NOT "in common usage"?
What about new designs? Until January 1982 there wasn't a commercially available, shoulder fired .50 BMG. Ronnie Barrett built the first. Now there are dozens of companies making them.
Until the late 1950's, the AR-10did not exist. Eugene Stoner made the first in 1955. From the larger AR-10 design, the AR-15 was born a few years later.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.