Assault Weapons Are Not Protected By the Second Amendment

[Jinpachi]

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.



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



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

They seem to be doing a fair job against it in the middle east. Besides, the soldiers wont go to war against the citizens it swore to protect. Anyone that would deserves what they'd get. No, if it came to that it would be mostly bombs and drone strikes, with some help from the blue helmets from the north and south. good luck.

[daenerys]

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.

The only way to rewrite the constitution is through the amendment process. I suppose you could write one massive amendment that basically rewrites the whole thing, but it would have to be through the amendment process.

The founding fathers never anticipated that lawyers would get so nitpicky about wording as we are now days. All of their intentions were written down in the Federalist papers, and they figured that would be good enough if anyone had any questions about what was intended. However most judges and lawyers no longer care about what the intent and spirit of the constitution is, but instead about how they can twist it to mean what they want it to mean.

[Kellhound]

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.

The SCOTUS can rule anyway they want concerning any "right" no matter what The People think it should mean. So technically, ANY right in the US is based on the whim of 5 people.

[Dug]

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.

I just don't see what good it will do and no not because hurr criminals don't care about laws but firearms are firearms. Unless every one is walking around with some body armor these guns not classified as "assault" are still going to kill you... lesser guns aren't shooting nerf darts here.

[Ghostpanther]

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.

That is true to how it can interpreted by one's agenda. Reason we have liberal, moderate and conservative Supreme Court justices. But no matter how one writes a law, you can can not do away with a person's personal agenda. And even then, matters would still on occasion have to be settled by someone in a high seat. :P But in my opinion the Constitution has served this country very well indeed and has no need to be rewritten. There are ways to amend it as you know.

[kail]

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

Not much of an answer, and I know it's hardly visited. I also know the situation is highly unlikely but I question people's stance on risking their rights on a vague sentence.

[Pantalaimon]

Assault weapons should not be protected anyway.

What do you expect, that you're going to need to protect your home in the Bronks from the entire gang of the Bloods AND the Crips? lawl

Pistols/handguns are the only thing the vast majority of people will ever need to protect themselves in the U.S. Everything else is overkill in any realistic situation.

[Jinpachi]

They seem to be doing a fair job against it in the middle east. Besides, the soldiers wont go to war against the citizens it swore to protect. Anyone that would deserves what they'd get. No, if it came to that it would be mostly bombs and drone strikes, with some help from the blue helmets from the north and south. good luck.

You know why that will never happen?

1. Too many gun owners willing to fight and die in the U.S.

2 Too much risk of other countries attacking if another civil war popped off.

3. Too many gun owners willing to fight and die.

[TITAN308]

Not much of an answer, and I know it's hardly visited. I also know the situation is highly unlikely but I question people's stance on risking their rights on a vague sentence.

I can only speak for myself. I don't find it vague, there for I see no reason to re-visit it.

[Deleted]

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.

yeah i did google a bit. seems lots of places sell the actual tanks. finding places that straight up sell ammunition is harder but i guess that's not to hard if you know where to look.

Might have to look around if i can find a place where i can shoot a rocket launcher, that might be fun to do sometime.

[TITAN308]

Pistols/handguns are the only thing the vast majority of people will ever need to protect themselves in the U.S. Everything else is overkill in any realistic situation.

Pssst... gotta a little tid bit for you.

Handguns kill a majority of people in the US, not rifles.

If you were an honest proponent of gun control, you'd actually want to ban handguns and not rifles.

You quite literally have no idea what you are talking about.

[Kellhound]

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.

But the 1st only covers speech by name (not expression) , while the 2nd very clearly covers arms, though one could argue what is meant by "bear" arms.

[Dug]

Assault weapons should not be protected anyway.

What do you expect, that you're going to need to protect your home in the Bronks from the entire gang of the Bloods AND the Crips? lawl

Pistols/handguns are the only thing the vast majority of people will ever need to protect themselves in the U.S. Everything else is overkill in any realistic situation.

Disagree. A semi-automatic pistol can do just as much damage as a semi-auto rifle. Charles Whitman, the Austin clock tower sniper, killed 14 people with a rifle that would not be classified as a "assault rifle" and one that is regularly used for hunting.

[Spiffums]

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.



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.

Everyone wants the MOG but I kinda want an MRAP for my daily driver if i lived where there were lots of protests

[Ghostpanther]

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.

Ok as in agreement? Of course not! Our rights are pretty clear in my opinion. But the real issue is not everyone shares my opinion and this also applies to those on the Supreme Court. But it is a necessary evil. It just so happens in the case of the second amendment and it's use for self defense was a ruling I mostly agree with. There are some parts of it I do not however. But it is what it is now.

[TITAN308]

yeah i did google a bit. seems lots of places sell the actual tanks. finding places that straight up sell ammunition is harder but i guess that's not to hard if you know where to look.

Might have to look around if i can find a place where i can shoot a rocket launcher, that might be fun to do sometime.

You can always create your own ammo. Gunpowder doesn't even require paperwork. I can go buy canisters of it from my local Cabelas or Academy sports for about $20 a pound.

1. Get approval to create destructive device from ATF (1 round of munitions)

2. Build shell

3. Cast giant bullet

4. Buy gunpowder / design primer or ignition system

5. Load, figure out way to trip ignition system

6. Kaboom

[kail]

The SCOTUS can rule anyway they want concerning any "right" no matter what The People think it should mean. So technically, ANY right in the US is based on the whim of 5 people.

They will rule based on what is written. If the text is overly vague, you put a higher risk on having extremely different interpretations and rulings. As I said, they can rule on way and only apply the right to militia (because it's worded that way) or they can grant every person the complete freedom to own w/e weapon exists that our military also makes use of (which is also worded that way).

[schwarzkopf]

Fun fact - personal weapons of any kind aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment ... but who cares about facts when you can have a gun

[Kellhound]

Not much of an answer, and I know it's hardly visited. I also know the situation is highly unlikely but I question people's stance on risking their rights on a vague sentence.

It could say "Every person in the US has the right to own an AR-15." and the SCOTUS could rule that it doesnt mean every person in the US has the right to own an AR-15....

[Spiffums]

You know why that will never happen?

1. Too many gun owners willing to fight and die in the U.S.

2 Too much risk of other countries attacking if another civil war popped off.

3. Too many gun owners willing to fight and die.

When it gets to this point in America again...... no one with any sense will step in. They will wait and let us thin down each other then jump in. The American Civil War was arguably the bloodiest war in history. And do love how the liberals all assume the military will protect them like the 2nd Amendment crowd is going to just up and start shooting. From what I've seen if anyone jumps 1st it will be the Trump is going to round up the mexicans/gays/women/whatever crowd. They are the ones buying guns now and threatening to kill people. And they are just crazy enough to do it.