Use the 2nd Amendment to Outlaw Assault Weapons

[myth-one.com]

The Second Amendment: 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."

The US militia is the world's best. Yet they cannot protect us from domestic terrorists armed with assault weapons bent on destruction.

That being the case, the people should be ordered to turn over all assault weapons owned by them to the militia immediately!

The militia needs your assault weapons now so that security can be provided to the masses.

It's a national emergency.

That's the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment! Learn to read, Supreme Court!

============================================

Politicians often claim that, "The gun doesn't kill people, the person kills people."

True, but people with an assault rifle can kill many more victims in the same amount of time than a person with a regular rifle.

Duh!

Here's another idea: When the government wanted to restrict smoking, they taxed a pack of cigarettes out of reach of many people.

Do the same for assault weapons -- place an excessive tax on each round of ammunition!

Any comments or questions?

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 19 by AgnosticBoy]

I appreciate the raw numbers but my point still applies here. Better "standards" would solve this problem. And of course, the benefit of my view is that it also keeps an effective means of self-defense in place so that good people can protect themselves from bad guys. Your view is an unnecessary and EXTREME action, one that I find liberals wanting to put IDEOLOGY (perhaps based on their irrational fear and ignorance of guns) above facts.

What ideology am I guilty of other than common sense? My wife and I both carry on occasion. She's a former police officer trained at a Texas Police Academy and I'm a Marine -- a Past Commandant in the MCL. We are both adherents of the second amendment -- don't give me any of that "EXTREME liberal" BS!

You also keep ranting about assault "rifles", when handguns can and have been used in mass shootings. I see little to no difference between a handgun with a large capacity magazine and an AK47 other than the size of the bullet. Besides that, the same number of people can get injured or worse if you have a 30 round handgun vs. a 30 round assault rifle.

Would it make you any happier if I agreed with you that machine hand-guns with high capacity magazines should be included in a ban on assault rifles? Good point -- let's include machine pistols in the ban.

Does it make any sense to you that if these machine type weapons are more difficult to come by, maybe the crazies will become less effective in mowing down people. Other countries have eliminated the easy sources of such weaponry and show remarkably calm statistics in violent shootings. You just don't want your Rambo toy(s) taken away from you!

[Clownboat]

I appreciate the raw numbers but my point still applies here. Better "standards" would solve this problem.

What ideology am I guilty of other than common sense? My wife and I both carry on occasion. She's a former police officer trained at a Texas Police Academy and I'm a Marine -- a Past Commandant in the MCL. We are both adherents of the second amendment -- don't give me any of that "EXTREME liberal" BS!

This did not and does not address his point which was:
"Better "standards" would solve this problem."

Would it make you any happier if I agreed with you that machine hand-guns with high capacity magazines should be included in a ban on assault rifles? Good point -- let's include machine pistols in the ban.

Also, did not address his actual point:
"Better "standards" would solve this problem."

Does it make any sense to you that if these machine type weapons are more difficult to come by, maybe the crazies will become less effective in mowing down people. Other countries have eliminated the easy sources of such weaponry and show remarkably calm statistics in violent shootings. You just don't want your Rambo toy(s) taken away from you!

Same thing, but now getting emotional it seems.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1 by myth-one.com]

You could implement this plan but I do not believe it will have your intended effect. Just like there are people who are still willing to pay the 5 dollars for a pack of cigarettes. There will still be people who are willing to pay the tax for ammunition.

But it does some ironic that the founding fathers wanted every citizen to own a weapon so that the government would be afraid of open rebellion against it and now that very same government that the founding fathers instituted now wants the very weapons that keeps malicious dictators out of office as i described in the following article.

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The Second Amendment: 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."

The US militia is the world's best. Yet they cannot protect us from domestic terrorists armed with assault weapons bent on destruction.

That being the case, the people should be ordered to turn over all assault weapons owned by them to the militia immediately!

The militia needs your assault weapons now so that security can be provided to the masses.

It's a national emergency.

That's the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment! Learn to read, Supreme Court!

The problem is that the supreme court has multiple times affirmed that the right to own a gun lies with the individual as well as a militia. If you want to take guns away you are going to have to change the 2nd amendment.

Here's another idea: When the government wanted to restrict smoking, they taxed a pack of cigarettes out of reach of many people.

Do the same for assault weapons -- place an excessive tax on each round of ammunition!

The supreme court has also ruled that you cannot tax a right so some people cannot exercise that right. Obtaining a cigarette is not a right in the constitution.

Also, taxing cigarettes so poor people cannot get them is immoral in my opinion.

[myth-one.com]

The problem is that the supreme court has multiple times affirmed that the right to own a gun lies with the individual as well as a militia. If you want to take guns away you are going to have to change the 2nd amendment.

The second amendment does not mention guns:

The Second Amendment:

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.

Guns are simply one of many types of arms.

Nuclear arms, battleships, fighter planes, attack helicopters, artillery, etc, etc, are also protected under the second amendment -- all being arms.

As an American, I can keep and bear nukes under the 2nd amendment.

If that got to the Supreme Court, and they ruled against my constitutional rights to keep and bear nuclear arms, then that would set the precedent that the word "arms" is negotiable.

Once "arms" became negotiable (as it should reasonably be) -- assault weapons and other nonsensible arms could be excluded from protection under the second amendment.

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The problem is that the supreme court has multiple times affirmed that the right to own a gun lies with the individual as well as a militia. If you want to take guns away you are going to have to change the 2nd amendment.

The second amendment does not mention guns:

The Second Amendment:

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.

Guns are simply one of many types of arms.

Nuclear arms, battleships, fighter planes, attack helicopters, artillery, etc, etc, are also protected under the second amendment -- all being arms.

As an American, I can keep and bear nukes under the 2nd amendment.

If that got to the Supreme Court, and they ruled against my constitutional rights to keep and bear nuclear arms, then that would set the precedent that the word "arms" is negotiable.

Once "arms" became negotiable (as it should reasonably be) -- assault weapons and other nonsensible arms could be excluded from protection under the second amendment.

I agree that the word arms means any type of weapon. The supreme court has ruled that restricting arms is constitutional but it set limits on those restrictions.

Can you define what an assault weapon is?

[myth-one.com]

The problem is that the supreme court has multiple times affirmed that the right to own a gun lies with the individual as well as a militia. If you want to take guns away you are going to have to change the 2nd amendment.

The second amendment does not mention guns:

The Second Amendment:

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.

Guns are simply one of many types of arms.

Nuclear arms, battleships, fighter planes, attack helicopters, artillery, etc, etc, are also protected under the second amendment -- all being arms.

As an American, I can keep and bear nukes under the 2nd amendment.

If that got to the Supreme Court, and they ruled against my constitutional rights to keep and bear nuclear arms, then that would set the precedent that the word "arms" is negotiable.

Once "arms" became negotiable (as it should reasonably be) -- assault weapons and other nonsensible arms could be excluded from protection under the second amendment.

I agree that the word arms means any type of weapon. The supreme court has ruled that restricting arms is constitutional but it set limits on those restrictions.

Can you define what an assault weapon is?

An assault weapon is a weapon used to carry out an assault.

Do we need to have civilians assaulting each other?

That's the job of the military and police agencies.

=====================================================================

Anyways, you say:

The supreme court has ruled that restricting arms is constitutional but it set limits on those restrictions.

===========================================================================

How can the Constitution allow that:

1 -- The right of the people to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

and

2 -- The right to keep and bear arms can be restricted within limits?

===================================================

Are you referring to sanity, criminal background checks, and age restrictions?

Or, are you saying there are limits set on the actual type of weapons?

The latter is what we are currently debating.

The Geneva Convention probably outlaws poison gas as a weapon, or arm.

Does the 2nd amendment do the same?

Can you name one "arm" restricted by the constitution?

=====================================

Thanks for your interest.

[AgnosticBoy]

An assault weapon is a weapon used to carry out an assault.

Do we need to have civilians assaulting each other?

That's the job of the military and police agencies.

Civilians need protection against violent crime. While it is the job of cops to protect but it is also the job of the civilian, as well. If you think otherwise then please offer logic and evidence instead of just opinion.

[AgnosticBoy]

Are you referring to sanity, criminal background checks, and age restrictions?

Or, are you saying there are limits set on the actual type of weapons?

The latter is what we are currently debating.

The Geneva Convention probably outlaws poison gas as a weapon, or arm.

Does the 2nd amendment do the same?

Can you name one "arm" restricted by the constitution?

Yes, the government can limit the type of arms but you have not shown why they should restrict semi-automatic firearms. I offered my reasoning in post 2. Care to address it?

Could the government lead by example and give up its guns first? 😉

[Clizby Wampuscat]

An assault weapon is a weapon used to carry out an assault.

This is an inadequate definition of an assault weapon. The definition of assault is "to make a physical attack on". With this definition knives, forks and feather dusters would be defined as an assault weapon. If you want to restrict weapons then you need to narrowly define what those weapons are.

Do we need to have civilians assaulting each other?

That's the job of the military and police agencies.

To assault civilians?

How can the Constitution allow that:

1 -- The right of the people to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

and

2 -- The right to keep and bear arms can be restricted within limits?

Because the supreme court has interpreted it to mean just this. You may not like our system but the supreme court has the authority to make these decisions, you don't.

Are you referring to sanity, criminal background checks, and age restrictions?

Or, are you saying there are limits set on the actual type of weapons?

The latter is what we are currently debating.

I am talking about limiting weapons for civilians. We do this with with fully automatic weapons etc.

The Geneva Convention probably outlaws poison gas as a weapon, or arm.

Does the 2nd amendment do the same?

Can you name one "arm" restricted by the constitution?

No, but the supreme court has ruled that we can restrict weapons to civilians within limits.