that's a specious argument the fact that people owned cannon was not because of the 2A.
Seriously, Glen, you are making less sense the farther you go. This will be my last attempt at education.
(1) Caliber has nothing to do with whether or not a weapon is termed a rifle or a weapon. Whether or not it will fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger does. Actually, assault rifles are selective fire. Non selective automatics are termed machine guns. AR 15s are assault weapons. Please look it up.
(2) You really believe that all sniper rifles should be banned based on the off chance that someone will use one in an assassination? That makes no sense, and certainly is at odds with your claim that you do not want to stop law abiding citizens from owning firearms.
Makes me wonder just which firearms you would allow. Could you enlighten me?
(3) There is no practical way to stop baseball bats, bowling balls, tennis racquets from being used in crimes. Should these to be banned?
(4) I'm 76, I have a weapon(s). I do recognize the need to communicate.
ArmsThe only thing that matters is the original position, as written in the original documents because that's what was actually ratified by the states. Twisting things to make them conform to a modern approach isn't Constitutional.
Nothing was because of the 2A, the 2A came into being as a means to protect those people's rights to own those weapons.
Guy, whatever you do or do not want to call it, it is still a rifle that can fire the same high-power round that an M-16 fires, am I correct?
I don't know of any recent cases where arsenic was used to kill someone...so does that mean that we should allow just about anyone to buy arsenic? Just because someone hasn't used a weapon that is designed to be used to kill people does NOT mean that we should allow people to buy it...because sooner or later it WILL be used to kill people.
No military-style sniper rifles, no semi-automatic rifles that can be fairly easily converted over to automatic fire, no large-capacity clips (if you'll remember, the only reason people were able to tackle the Arizona shooter was because he had to stop to change clips). I'd require training for any purchase of a new class of firearms (and the NRA can do this). I'd require registration and insurance.
What does this leave law-abiding gun owners? Pretty much everything but sniper rifles and rifles that can be easily converted over to automatic fire. I know that's SUCH an intrusion on your oh-so-holy 2A freedom....
bats, balls, and racquets are not designed to be used to kill people, are they? And for the life of me, I can't think of a massacre that's taken place using any of those.
Good for you.
To be honest though, the Supreme Court is often hobbled by the fact that the genie is out of the bottle and there's no real way to put it back and therefore, their decisions need to be practical, even if they stray from the Constitution.
its rich that you talk about the TEXT OF THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION when you do creative interpretation for the Commerce Clause and then pretend SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED does not prevent infringement
the fact that it took 130+ years for someone to "find" a power to regulate small arms in the Commerce Clause shows how bankrupt your argument is
you make me sad, because of your constant failings to prove the founders wrong.
It makes no difference how long it takes to discover truth.
I have been posting on guns probably longer and in more depth than anyone on DP though there was this one guy who shows up every once in awhile who is pretty specific and well educated.
I have always said the founders saw WEAPONS OF WAR in three CATEGORIES
ARMS-what someone would keep and bear-muskets, spears, lances, swords, pistols, rifles, shotguns
the stuff you'd bring to the muster if the village militia was called up
ORDNANCE-bombs, rockets, grenades, greek fire
ARTILLERY-Cannon, howitzers, mortars
that's another dishonest argument because we all understand that the ND supreme court ignored the actual words of the constitution to suck up to FDR
Where did I attempt to show the Constitution was wrong? What did I fail in.
Lets see the evidence Herr Barkmann.... lets see it and to the devil with your own evaluation.
That question is for you to answer. You claim to not want to deny law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear, then list those I don't need, to include AR 15 styles, sniper rifles, any weapons based on military calibers, .22s if they look scary. Many others.
Why don't you tell me what you think I should be allowed to keep and bear? It shouldn't take long.
did not say anything about the Constitution here.
Arms
In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried.
you would have a bit more credibility in your argument if you admit what almost everyone else knows
But any time somebody says the Amendment only protects weapons used in colonial times you strongly object. You cannot it it both ways Turtle.
Just who is EVERYONE ELSE?
Does that presumption really include EVERYONE or just those with whom you agree?
The product of the 55 Founders is the Constitution. that is what we are discussing.
you make me sad, because of your constant failings to prove the founders wrong.
Again, where do we draw the line?
that is so moronic that anyone who utters it is condemned to the rubbish Heap of idiots because the entire purpose was to allow citizens to bear the same weapons as the militia. There was no restriction based on the state of the art in 1789
and the 2A does not say that so you are again lying Its like saying Protestant denominations that were not in existence in 1789 are not covered by the First Amendment or that forms of execution and torture not known in that era can never be objectionable as cruel or unusual
Kids, Guns, and the Commerce Clause: Is the Court Ready for Constitutional Government?
everyone who has studied the constitution. those who support the current expansion of the commerce clause always defend it in terms of "it was best for the nation" rather than it was a proper application of original intent.
here is the quote again...
no where is the word constitution posted......so am i suppose to jump into the constitution...
the post means you state something, and i post something from the founders that counters your statement...making it wrong
Which is clearly NOT everybody else now that you put your own special ideological and very personal qualifiers upon it rendering the term EVERYBODY ELSE completely and utterly without any true meaning.
I am sorry but I have no idea what using terms like MORONIC and IDIOTS have to do with the intellectual contradictions of positions constantly taken for you self but criticize in regarding the arguments of others. Either the Constitution is limited to the conditions at the time of its adoption or it adapts to the new developments throughout history. You cannot have it one way with your claim about you defining what constitutes arms and then belittle or berate others when they want to limit arms to that same period.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?