Assault Weapons Are Not Protected By the Second Amendment

[Spiffums]

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

The US Government! You can buy a tank all day long........you just can't buy one with working guns.

[TITAN308]

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

Believe it or not, the tank doesn't actually require permission to own. However the ammunition does. It would be classied as a Destructive Device under the ATF and would require a $200 tax stamp for each individual round of munition.

To answer your question; http://www.guns.com/2015/08/25/want-to-buy-a-tank/

Or just Google "Where can I buy a tank?"

Even importing them is easy peasy.

The US Government! You can buy a tank all day long........you just can't buy one with working guns.

Also this. The military sells DeComm'd shit all the time.

You will have to spend some money to restore the guns to working condition. However fully automatic weapon systems cannot be restored (like machine guns) because those are just flat out banned unless they were made before 1984 (in which case, remember that $200 fee I mentioned?) and/or you are a Class III dealer.

[RampageBW1]

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

Ah, that explains it. Well abbreviations, usually when shortening a longer name down to a shorter name, you take the first letter of each word in the name for the Abbreviation.

In which case, "Automatic Rifle model 15" being shortened to AR-15 made more sense in my mind (and so too would Assault Rifle model 15). But the abbreviation from the first 2 letters in the company name just didn't feel right. Oh well, thanks.

[kail]

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

Yes, but one is far more clear than the other. That's why I questioned your advise to interpret the 2nd like the 1st.

[Kellhound]

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?

Yes, if you are not a criminal, and can afford it, go ahead an own a M1A2, or any other weapon not covered by international treaties.

[May90]

I think we just have to admit that 2nd Amendment is poorly written, since "bear arms" is a somewhat fuzzy sentence, and it can be interpreted in various ways to suit one's agenda. Assault weapons are definitely "arms", so are machine guns, tanks, aircraft carriers and ICBMs with nuclear warheads. Since the right isn't to be infringed, well...

On the other hand, if we aren't to take Constitution literally and are free to make up our own interpretation of it, then what is the Constitution worth?

I've always said that it is time to rewrite the Constitution from scratch. You can't hope for the document from almost 250 years ago to represent modern realities well, regardless of how many amendments and fixes you put in it.

[Dug]

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

There are collectors that own tanks and they are civilians. Obviously you need a shit ton of money. Pretty sure just owning the tank is about the money, using rounds in the thing is an entirely other issue that you would need to go through a hell of a lot of paper work for... and money.

[Ghostpanther]

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?

Mainly it does. They are a very powerful court and influence our society more so than any other organization in the US. There is none as powerful.

[Kellhound]

Yes, but one is far more clear than the other. That's why I questioned your advise to interpret the 2nd like the 1st.

Is it? Speech is defined as: a spoken expression of ideas, opinions, etc., that is made by someone who is speaking in front of a group of people (per Websters). So I would argue the 1st is more ambiguous than the 2nd in many regards.

[kail]

Mainly it does. They are a very powerful court and influence our society more so than any other organization in the US. There is none as powerful.

Hypothetical: If the next seats are filled and they rule that the 2A only applies to militia because of its wording, you would be OK with that? I for one would rather have my rights that I care about being a little more clear and with little room to interpret it one way or another.

[TITAN308]

Fun fact, you can buy a fighter jet too!

[daenerys]

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.

The statement about a well regulated militia is just a statement of fact and provides no rights in and of itself. The portion that provides the rights is where it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. These are the same people in the first amendment, and the same people in all other amendments.

If you look at what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote it, they intended to have everyone be able to own a weapon of basic infantry issue so that the masses could rise up and overthrow an oppressive regime, or defend their homes from an invading army.

If you don't like it there's a method to change it. But at its core it was meant to give people the right to own small arms of basic military issue, like it or not.

[Zeta333]

An interesting ruling with possibly interesting implications. Thoughts?

there is no such thing as an assault weapon, its a made up fantasy shock term.

[May90]

Fun fact, you can buy a fighter jet too!

Can you buy a nuclear submarine? I've always wanted to own one!

Not even kidding, a week-long trip on a real functional submarine has always been one of my wild dreams.

[Mormolyce]

Now we get on the "what is an assault weapon" roundabout to the chorus of sneering gun nerds.

Assault weapon laws are an extreme compromise, since the US has blockaded any sensible gun control.

Does this apply to freedom of speech? After all, back then all they had was quill and parchment.

Titan, buddy, serious question: did you intend this to be a cutting insight? Or just a silly joke?

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

No gun in the world will protect you from the modern American military.

[TITAN308]

Hypothetical: If the next seats are filled and they rule that the 2A only applies to militia because of its wording, you would be OK with that? I for one would rather have my rights that I care about being a little more clear and with little room to interpret it one way or another.

From me understanding SCOTUS very rarely re-visits prior case matter and even more rarely overrules themselves.

[Jinpachi]

Just about time to lock & load. The weak have had their say for far too long.

[Kellhound]

Mainly it does. They are a very powerful court and influence our society more so than any other organization in the US. There is none as powerful.

They are by far the most powerful institution in the US. They, and they alone, determine what the Constitution "actually" says.

[TITAN308]

Can you buy a nuclear submarine? I've always wanted to own one!

Not even kidding, a week-long trip on a real functional submarine has always been one of my wild dreams.

I dunno about a military sized sub... but...

http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/0...sed-submarine/



I imagine if you were rich enough, yea you could probably have a giant sub made.

I mean... this is what billionaires do at sea...

[kail]

Is it? Speech is defined as: a spoken expression of ideas, opinions, etc., that is made by someone who is speaking in front of a group of people (per Websters). So I would argue the 1st is more ambiguous than the 2nd in many regards.

I would support the idea of replacing "speech" with "expression" for the sake of clarity. At the moment the idea behind Freedom of Expression is already supported by the government and it includes words.