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.
The Biden administration with all its accolades and complicit in the Capitol in the coupe d'Etat, is nothing to make me register my gun with them. That's Nazism and Communism in plain sight.
What is the definition of "assault weapon" ? Or did I miss that earlier in this thread ? Now, I would assume , it's anything used to assault someone...that's just me though.
The purpose of the Second Amendment was nothing less than a poison pill to be activated if the Federal Government ran amok and trampled the rights of the states and individuals. It meant for the people to have parity in weaponry with the federal government, and for the states to have a pool of self armed, and at least partially self trained men to draw on if they need to fight the federal government.
That being the case, a strong argument could be made that any weapon available to the federal government should be available to individual citizens.
To counter the "they didn't have the technology back then that we do now argument", ask yourself if the First Amendment applies to the internet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Good point. But would the founders consider todays arms in todays society necessary?
Assault Weapons - To me it could be inanimate objects, from a knife, a baseball bat with metal spikes, to a large semi truck that could be used for sinister purposes, most importantly, dangerous individuals are the ONLY assault weapons we have to be concerned with. That's why our founding fathers gave us "The right to keep and bear arms", which as stated in the Second Amendment says: Shall Not Be Infringed.
Those of you who don't know anything about firearms, they've had strict laws that regulate the ownership of full-auto weapons since 1990. Has that stopped violent individuals, drug cartels and gangs from possessing such weapons? Nope, and stricter laws that infringe on the rights of decent law-abiding Americans will not keep such weapons out of the hands of violent criminals, who are notorious for not complying with any laws, including the one that says: Thou Shall Not Murder.
Politicians who think banning guns will make everyone safer should look at cases where citizens do not have the right to keep and bear arms, or such rights are heavily restricted, countries such as Mexico, cities such as Chicago, where violent crimes are high and are committed by violent criminals, so it would make more sense to focus on gangs and drug cartels instead of us decent law-abiding Americans.
It would also help if idiotic officials, such as Los Angeles' district attorney George Gascon did what they're supposed to do and that is keep violent individuals behind bars instead of releasing them to commit more crimes, not to mention fund law enforcement agencies instead of pushing for Defunding Police.
I look at it the other way around. What would the effect of hard core gun control be. I look at Prohibition and the War on Drugs as guides. One of the great truisms of American history is that to impose a ban on some commodity is not only ineffective, it leads to a complete loss of control of the supply of that commodity.
My prediction is that if there is any effect ban on the legal distribution of weapons, the drug cartels and other will build illicit supply lines from other counties (cough..China.cough), and smuggle them in and sell them on the back market. And these will be much more destructive weapons than we have now. The two types I easily seem them selling are hand grenades and small submachine guns. Both are easy and cheap to make, and the grenades are single use only, so they can keep selling more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum Mike
Politicians who think banning guns will make everyone safer should look at cases where citizens do not have the right to keep and bear arms, or such rights are heavily restricted, countries such as Mexico, cities such as Chicago, where violent crimes are high and are committed by violent criminals, so it would make more sense to focus on gangs and drug cartels instead of us decent law-abiding Americans.
It would also help if idiotic officials, such as Los Angeles' district attorney George Gascon did what they're supposed to do and that is keep violent individuals behind bars instead of releasing them to commit more crimes, not to mention fund law enforcement agencies instead of pushing for Defunding Police.
There is no justified domestic use for an assault rifle. You can't have everything you want. The assault rifle ban WILL BE reinstated - live with it.
No justified reason? Hunting? Target shooting? I suspect you're one of those people who have no idea what an "assault" rifle is (they don't exist) and think any scary black rifle is "military grade". How about this: don't weigh in on things you know nothing about. Educate yourself, then come back here and attempt to engage in rational discourse. Your hysteria-based whining isn't going to change anyone's mind.
Back before the constitution was written, the British outlawed and actually called certain muskets assault weapons, shot 27 residents of Boston while trying to confiscate them. I believe 2A was specifically designed to prevent the government, any government from outlawing anything an individual can use to defend themselves. If you think things are different today you are wrong. If I could afford a fully armed A10 I should be able to have one
What does the term 'Arms' mean to you in the phrase 'Right To Bear 'Arms''?
Show me where it says "any" arms. This argument is much like Sov Cits who claim the right to travel, but don't seem to grasp that nowhere is your right to travel by any means mentioned. You can travel on your feet to your heart's desire. Hence, when you're required to have a driver's license to operate a car, your right to travel hasn't been violated. You can still exercise said right via some other mode. The 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms. If you are carrying a pocket knife, you're armed and your rights are intact. The Constitution isn't meant to cover every scenario. The implementation of the Constitution is via law. The judicial system is in place in case of legislative overreach. As such, individual citizens don't get to interpret the Constitution any way they want. It simply doesn't work that way. Until SCOTUS says other wise, "assault" weapon bans are perfectly Constitutional. Personally, I think assault weapon bans are stupid. They're an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist and are based on hysteria, not fact. Even worse, such bans will deprive tens of millions of people the ability to enjoy target shooting, hunting, etc. Frankly, the anti-gun crowd are nothing but a bunch of low self esteem power-hungry nannies. The thrive on being buzz-kills. Anytime they see someone having fun, they jump in to put a stop to it. Guns, high performance cars, motorcycles, skateboards, you name it. If it's fun, they want to regulate it out of existence.
Back before the constitution was written, the British outlawed and actually called certain muskets assault weapons, shot 27 residents of Boston while trying to confiscate them. I believe 2A was specifically designed to prevent the government, any government from outlawing anything an individual can use to defend themselves. If you think things are different today you are wrong. If I could afford a fully armed A10 I should be able to have one
I totally agree...but the catch is...the person must be willing to use the assault weapon!
Think about it...if we honor and respect the 2nd Amendment, people that go and shoot up Govt buildings would be labelled as 'patriots'...(this is not the case today though), nearly everyone views such a person as a 'domestic terrorist'.
This is one reason why I do not think the 2nd Amendment is useful (especially today), the simple fact is, not many people are willing to pull and gun and shoot a Govt employee in the attempt to stop 'tyranny'...for that to even be effective, would require 100s of 1000s of American citizens, all willing to shoot!
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.
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.
