Guns: how much longer will it take ....

I can see your point, however there are a lot "what if's" in your writing.

There is one giant problem with your idea though;

"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."

Despite what could happen, until THAT is changed there will be no mass gun banning.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited.

Wrong. The Supreme Court is not bound to uphold the rulings of judges on lower courts.

The fact that liberals hate the Constitution and want to "interpret" it to say that we have no civil rights is exactly why it is so important to vote for Republicans.

The problems at home began when the public let the democrats take the mentally 'challenged' out of the institutions and try to assimulate them into regular society.

The formation of the union and adoption of the constitution was conditioned on acceptance of the bill of rights. Remove any part of the bill of rights PARTICULARLY the 2'nd amendment, and the union itself becomes illegitimate. That would amount to reneging on an agreement.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

From Justice Scalia in the Heller decision:

Quote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited.

By refusing to take a case on appeal the Supreme court is upholding those rulings.

This is even more a nonsense argument than your pistol grip argument.

Owning a gun is not the only right guaranteed under the Constitution. The rights specifically stated in the Constitution are not the only rights guaranteed. The inalienable rights discussed in the Declaration of Independence would also be rights people living in the US would be guaranteed. I do not give up my rights to life and liberty because of the 2nd amendment.

This is a continuing pattern on your part. You pick one item out of many and pretend it is the crux of the argument.

While you may think it is a strong position it actually shows how weak your debate skills are.

sceletera wrote:

From Justice Scalia in the Heller decision:

Quote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited.

No right is unlimited.

But only limitations that can be justified with a good reason are allowed.

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

No one has told me which of these is an assault rifle. Would one be banned? Would both be banned? Neither?

About that compelling reason:

Quote:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

By banning assault style weapons your right is not taken away since you can still own other types of guns.

Those killed by assault style weapons can not own another type of life so they are the ones that are losing a right. It is easy to balance the small restriction of a right with the absolute loss of a right.

Your continued argument from ignorance only shows your ignorance.

For you to argue that the court rulings are trivia is to argue that the Constitution is meaningless and rights do not exist in a free society.

Court rulings are hardly trivia.

Let me explain why court rulings are not trivia.

Your continued calling court rulings trivia or irrelevant diminishes the Constitution.

When you diminish the Constitution you undermine any argument you make about the 2nd amendment since the 2nd amendment is only one small part of a document that you seem to claim is meaningless.

Since the Constitution is the supreme law and since the Constitution states that it is the courts that have the power to decide all legal questions about the Constitution, Court rulings can not be trivia or irrelevant in any discussion of the meaning of any part of the Constitution.

This appears to be a variant of an AR-15. As such it can be banned without violating the US Constitution.

This rifle would not have been banned under most assault weapons laws since it didn't meet the legal definition under the law. If you want to make a case that it would be Constitutional to ban it, go ahead. That is the only LEGAL case you are making.

Your emotional appeal that they are the same gun doesn't play well under the law.