Assault Weapons Are Not Protected By the Second Amendment

[Jtbrig7390]

1. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.
2. The Right to Bear Arms is meant to protect us from an oppressive government, either foreign or domestic.

I'm tired of people (Mostly the left, but often the right aswell) picking and choosing which parts of the Bill of Rights are actually rights, and which ones are privileges (Hint: They are all rights, which is why it is called the Bill of Rights).

When the 2nd Amendment was written, a weapon of war was a muzzle loading Kentucky Rifle, and most Americans owned one. All guns are weapons of war.

Ya I'm tired of people ignoring the full amendment as well..

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.

Even more so the bolded first 3 words of it.

[kail]

I dunno, would you like a court to make that determination? Cause that is what is happening in this case.

That is all it boils down to. They decided to interpret it how they see fit, so there would nothing stopping them from doing the same thing on the first amendment if they were so inclined. Well, no one but SCOTUS.

That is my point, ultimately me and you don't get a say in the matter.

Then maybe even you can see the issue with how vague the 2A is. With the lack of specificity and constant arguments using the 2A, we can interpret it in so many ways.

[Kellhound]

Are weaponed drones legal? Legit question.

As for bombs, I'll assume that they are regulated and not easy to obtain via Walmart.

[/QUOTE]

It is debatable at this time if they are or not.

Bombs are far easier to obtain than guns for the most part, seeing as they are very simple to make from items purchased at Walmart.....

[TITAN308]

requiring paperwork, that can only be issued by the government, in order to acquire something, is pretty much the definition of "they decide".

Except if you are not someone who is prohibited from guns, then you can get said items.

Make no mistake, ATF paperwork is a formality. You cannot be denied the paperwork unless you qualify as a prohibited person under gunownership laws.

See this is my problem; I know how it works. I own the kind of stuff you can only get with ATF paperwork. You clearly don't.

Oh, and they also get to collect a nice $200 ransom for issuing your paperwork for each individual item you get your paperwork on.

They literally make millions every year approving paperwork that could just as easily be done by running a standard NICS check at a gunstore.

Then maybe even you can see the issue with how vague the 2A is. With the lack of specificity and constant arguments using the 2A, we can interpret it in so many ways.

The 2A is vague to those who choose to see it as vague. That is all I see.

[I Push Buttons]

The Right to Bear Arms is meant to protect us from an oppressive government, either foreign or domestic.

No it was meant for a well regulated militia since that was the extent of national defense back then. It says so right in the text.

[Spiffums]

Second Amendment is too vague and outdated for today's society and technology. If one were to be literal, "arms" is the shortened word for armament which is defined as military grade weapons.



So I'm not sure how the federal court came to their decision. Having said that, I'm not so much against the decision because firearms today are pretty much sporting goods. The argument for self-defense or preventing gov't tyranny is overly flawed and (again) outdated.

The judge ruled on his "feelz" rather than want words mean (meant) at the time the bill of rights were written.

[Kellhound]

Ya I'm tired of people ignoring the full amendment as well..



Even more so the bolded first 3 words of it.

Which has already be determined by the SCOTUS to not matter at all because the 2nd is referring to the right of the individual to own a firearm independant of any militia obligation.

[RampageBW1]

Honest question with no snark behind it; what does the 'A' in AR-15 stand for?

Is it an Automatic Rifle? But the Civilian variant seems to be Semi-Automatic and Burst, right? Wouldn't it then be safer to name it SAR-15 for the civilian model?

And it can't mean Assault, since people are so adamant about it not being an Assault Rifle.

Gun names are so confusing to me.

[Kellhound]

Then maybe even you can see the issue with how vague the 2A is. With the lack of specificity and constant arguments using the 2A, we can interpret it in so many ways.

So, we interpret the 2nd same way we interpret the 1st.

[kail]

The 2A is vague to those who choose to see it as vague. That is all I see.

Read it and tell me how you interpret it. It is vague, by its wording that right has been infringed on many levels today if people are now allowed to own military level weapons.

[Ghostpanther]

Ya I'm tired of people ignoring the full amendment as well..



Even more so the bolded first 3 words of it.

The concept it only applies to militia applications, has already been disputed by the highest Court in the land. Which ruled it is also a right for the private citizen to use for self defense. Their ruling allows me to exercise it for that purpose. Not your opinion.

[Kellhound]

Honest question with no snark behind it; what does the 'A' in AR-15 stand for?

Is it an Automatic Rifle? But the Civilian variant seems to be Semi-Automatic and Burst, right? Wouldn't it then be safer to name it SAR-15 for the civilian model?

And it can't mean Assault, since people are so adamant about it not being an Assault Rifle.

Gun names are so confusing to me.

ARmalite. Its derived from the name of the originating company of the design.

[kail]

So, we interpret the 2nd same way we interpret the 1st.

Uhmm, what?

[TITAN308]

No it was meant for a well regulated militia since that was the extent of national defense back then. It says so right in the text.

SCOTUS disagrees. Your argument doesn't matter.

Don't like that? Get SCOTUS to re-rule (good luck /liamneeson).

[Deleted]

Except if you are not someone who is prohibited from guns, then you can get said items.

Make no mistake, ATF paperwork is a formality. You cannot be denied the paperwork unless you qualify as a prohibited person under gunownership laws.

See this is my problem; I know how it works. I own the kind of stuff you can only get with ATF paperwork. You clearly don't.

Oh, and they also get to collect a nice $200 ransom for issuing your paperwork every time you file it.



The 2A is vague to those who choose to see it as vague. That is all I see.

So uhm, what kinda company do you talk to to buy a tank as a civilian? cause that was said item.

[Kellhound]

Read it and tell me how you interpret it. It is vague, by its wording that right has been infringed on many levels today if people are now allowed to own military level weapons.

It has been, and wrongly so.

[Spiffums]

Ya I'm tired of people ignoring the full amendment as well..



Even more so the bolded first 3 words of it.

They'd freak if they read the Militia act of 1794.

[Ghostpanther]

No it was meant for a well regulated militia since that was the extent of national defense back then. It says so right in the text.

Well I am thankful it is only your opinion and has no bearing on myself exercising my right according to the Constitution.

[kail]

It has been, and wrongly so.

So maybe even you would welcome the idea of altering for more specificity? So it doesn't just take SCOUTS to determine on what is allowed today or next year?

[Kellhound]

Uhmm, what?

As sweeping rights of the individual, as they both are listed as the right of THE PEOPLE.