Assault Weapons Are Not Protected By the Second Amendment

[kail]

Ok, tell me what prevents them from ruling that a word has any meaning they decide it does in the context of the Constitution, and I mean what LEGAL limitation, not moral limitation.

They can be impeached and replaced by anyone who knows the English language.

My point in the end, with the SCOUTS having the power that it does, why would we leave an important part of the Constitution as vague as it currently is? If you value the right, you should want as little wiggle room as possible for a court to read it one way or another. The SCOUTS is bound by the Constitution, we should damn well make sure the document is on point.

The recent ruling from the OP pretty much proves my point.

[May90]

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

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

[img]http://static.messynessychic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/twomansub.jpg[img]

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...

[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/27/article-2403499-1B77AC52000005DC-434_640x426.jpg[img]

Wow, I didn't know it was actually doable. I suppose though, to man an underwater ship, you need to have countless permissions and certificate, plus you probably will have to regularly identify yourself for the bypassing submarines, ships and planes. And if you accidentally cross someone's border, you won't have an easy time negotiating yourself out of this.

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.

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.

See, I don't particularly mind a somewhat frivolous interpretation of the Constitution. What I mind is this absolutism, in that if the Constitution exists, then it is there forever. The Constitution was written at the time when the strongest weapon one could have was a cannon, and it wasn't of much use in case someone posed an immediate threat to your life. Nowadays, when we have machine guns, grenades, nukes and other weapon able to kill in a matter of seconds from a few dozens to a few millions people, apparently, the Constitution has to adapt to the changes.

Perhaps it would be a good practice to rewrite Constitution from scratch, say, every 50 years, according to strict guidelines preventing the current government from putting their agenda first and practical necessities second. As it is, what will we do in 200, 500, 10k years? Using the same constitution doesn't seem viable, much like trying to adapt the medieval feudal system to the modern world isn't going to work well.

I don't really mind free guns possession as such; in fact, in these matters I'm probably a bit more pro- than anti-gun. I, however, believe that the modern reality should dictate our laws and rules, not some abstract rule set written by people who are long dead and aren't coming back. However one wants to twist it, a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment means that anyone can possess nuclear, chemical, biological and, in a distant future, perhaps anti-matter weapons - our world will be in ruins, if every drunk can at any moment press a button on their iPad v. 2773 and take out half of the planet.

Some reasonable amount of control should be present, and, the way the current 2nd amendment is, if taken literally, there is no such control to be had. The only way to impose it is to interpret the constitution voluntarily, which is a very dangerous mindset leading to the law negligence. Again, a somewhat frivolous interpretation should be too harmful, but where this "somewhat" ends and "overly" starts is hard to say.

[Kellhound]

They can be impeached and replaced by anyone who knows the English language.

My point in the end, with the SCOUTS having the power that it does, why would we leave an important part of the Constitution as vague as it currently is? If you value the right, you should want as little wiggle room as possible for a court to read it one way or another. The SCOUTS is bound by the Constitution, we should damn well make sure the document is on point.

The recent ruling from the OP pretty much proves my point.

Those who wrote were quite sure it WAS on point.

[Pantalaimon]

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.

Not only are you triggered, but your comment didn't touch on what I was talking about anyway.

My point was that automatic weapons don't provide people with a need that isn't already being met by handguns. There is no realistic or likely scenario that a civilian would need an automatic weapon for self-defense instead of a handgun.

[kail]

Those who wrote were quite sure it WAS on point.

Over 200 years ago, I'm sure. We tend to update things to make sure they stay relevant FYI.

[Tabrotar]

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.

Ah yes and the thing called WW I and WW II ofc never happend and they where really tame against the fucking BLODDY american civial war.

Yeah right please go play on a street you will do the world a favour if you get your genes out of the pool.

[Pantalaimon]

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.

I'm not arguing that handguns can't be dangerous. I'm saying that automatic weapons are way overkill if you're trying to justify any particular type of gun that is protected under the government, hence my dig at the stereotypical person in the Bronks needing more than a handgun because they might fear all of those gang bangers are going to jump them.

Pisotols and related handguns are more than adequate at providing a person with defense.

[Deleted]

They can be impeached and replaced by anyone who knows the English language.

My point in the end, with the SCOUTS having the power that it does, why would we leave an important part of the Constitution as vague as it currently is? If you value the right, you should want as little wiggle room as possible for a court to read it one way or another. The SCOUTS is bound by the Constitution, we should damn well make sure the document is on point.

The recent ruling from the OP pretty much proves my point.

Yeah they can be impeached after the fact. but that doesn't mean that what they decided isn't perfectly legal until a future scotus overrules it, which they don't have to.

[Kellhound]

Over 200 years ago, I'm sure. We tend to update things to make sure they stay relevant FYI.

Do you want "relevant" or "clear", now Im confused.

- - - Updated - - -

Not only are you triggered, but your comment didn't touch on what I was talking about anyway.

My point was that automatic weapons don't provide people with a need that isn't already being met by handguns. There is no realistic or likely scenario that a civilian would need an automatic weapon for self-defense instead of a handgun.

Unless the "badguy" is wearing Class III body armor.....

[Mormolyce]

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.

Typically "assault rifle" laws are aimed at reducing the potential damage of spree shooters, something the US has a uniquely huge problem with. These are distinct events from run of the mill gun homicide. So yeah it won't affect the latter, but arguably it helps reduce the former. Personal anecdote: I was on campus during the Monash University shooting in 2002 (but not in that building fortunately). The guy took a pile of handguns (legally owned) to commit the crime, larger guns being very difficult to obtain in Australia. He shot a bunch of people but was tackled when he went to reload. In the end only two people died. So I think it's plausible that type of weapon used to commit these crimes could be a factor in how deadly they are.

But I do agree that it's no substitute for real gun control. Which applies to all firearms.

- - - Updated - - -

Those who wrote were quite sure it WAS on point.

Then that "well regulated militia" clause must've been super important, huh?

[Spiffums]

Ah yes and the thing called WW I and WW II ofc never happend and they where really tame against the fucking BLODDY american civial war.

Yeah right please go play on a street you will do the world a favour if you get your genes out of the pool.

So I see you can not debate intelligently so you resort to the whole "kill yourself" type comments that SJWs love to rail on about when others do it and call it cyber bullying.

[Pantalaimon]

Do you want "relevant" or "clear", now Im confused.

- - - Updated - - -



Unless the "badguy" is wearing Class III body armor.....

Which happens how often over all of the cases of active shooters across the nation? The vast majority are your run of the mill criminal, lunatic, or disgruntled person, not the equivalent of some special ops professional.

[Kellhound]

Typically "assault rifle" laws are aimed at reducing the potential damage of spree shooters, something the US has a uniquely huge problem with. These are distinct events from run of the mill gun homicide. So yeah it won't affect the latter, but arguably it helps reduce the former. Personal anecdote: I was on campus during the Monash University shooting in 2002 (but not in that building fortunately). The guy took a pile of handguns (legally owned) to commit the crime, larger guns being very difficult to obtain in Australia. He shot a bunch of people but was tackled when he went to reload. In the end only two people died. So I think it's plausible that type of weapon used to commit these crimes could be a factor in how deadly they are.

But I do agree that it's no substitute for real gun control. Which applies to all firearms.

- - - Updated - - -



Then that "well regulated militia" clause must've been super important, huh?

I can likely kill 10-20 people with a bolt action rifle in a few minutes if I was so inclined, with a higher chance that any person hit would die rather than being wounded compared to an AR-15.

If it had been intended to just cover members of the militia, it would have stated the "right of the militia", not "the right of the people".

- - - Updated - - -

Which happens how often over all of the cases of active shooters across the nation? The vast majority are your run of the mill criminal, lunatic, or disgruntled person, not the equivalent of some special ops professional.

Yet one of the justifications police use to get AR-15s is the number of criminals wearing body armor.....

[Mormolyce]

They seem to be doing a fair job against it in the middle east.

Full credit to your terrible military quagmires on that one. But no, you've killed orders of magnitude more Iraqis than they've killed US soldiers, and they are nowhere near toppling the US puppet regime.

And that's a peregrine war. If you're fighting a totalitarian state it's domestic. Completely different ball game.

I can likely kill 10-20 people with a bolt action rifle in a few minutes if I was so inclined, with a higher chance that any person hit would die rather than being wounded compared to an AR-15.

If it had been intended to just cover members of the militia, it would have stated the "right of the militia", not "the right of the people".

And yet they rarely seem to choose bolt action rifles for killing sprees, despite them being significantly cheaper. I wonder why that is.

So why do you think the clause is there if it means nothing?

[Kellhound]

Full credit to your terrible military quagmires on that one. But no, you've killed orders of magnitude more Iraqis than they've killed US soldiers, and they are nowhere near toppling the US puppet regime.

And that's a peregrine war. If you're fighting a totalitarian state it's domestic. Completely different ball game.



And yet they rarely seem to choose bolt action rifles for killing sprees, despite them being significantly cheaper. I wonder why that is.

So why do you think the clause is there if it means nothing?

Dont know, as a bolt action in .338 Lapua would be my prefered mass murder rifle.

Its a preamble, nothing more. It has been explicitly decided by the Supreme Court that it is an individual right not tied to membership in a malita.

[Liftbrul]

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

Drones, tanks, fighter planes and battleships cannot enforce a curfew, cannot raid houses for contraband and cannot patrol the streets. For that, you need men. And no man is bullet proof. If you think that, in the event of a truly oppressive government that would lead to an outright civil war, the US govt. would simply start bombing population centers and civilians at large with every weapon in their arsenal, well, I didn't give your intelligence (or lack thereof) much credit to begin with.

[Macaquerie]

The argument that the Second Amendment is there to enable citizens to revolt against a tyrannical government is silly because either the military fights against you, so that you're screwed no matter what you're armed with, or it doesn't, in which case, what exactly do you need those weapons for anyway?

[Nazrark]

If I had enough money. I think I would buy a Missile Cruiser.

[Mayhem]

pistol grips have a combat function??????

No, of course not, they just use them because they are stylish and everyone knows it´s about style when fighting a war.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Citation needed.

I'm not saying Piers is right...but by Carol's Logic...everyone should have the right to own nukes.