federal assault weapons ban

au1929 wrote:

oralloy

Quote:
U.S. Constitution, Amendment II
(also known as 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.

Where is the restriction for use outside the US?

In Article I Section 8.

"The Congress shall have Power To....

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

All three are duties that occur within the US.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Cars are regulated--you need a license to drive and the car has to be registered.

Only if you drive on public roads. No need for licensing and registration if you stay off public roads.

Likewise, registration and licensing is required in many places to carry a gun in public, although it isn't the case everywhere.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

oralloy

Quote:
U.S. Constitution, Amendment II
(also known as 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.

Where is the restriction for use outside the US? How can you possible consider a bunch of gun enthusiasts a well regulated militia?

If you actually diagram the sentence, the right to keep and bear arms is given to the people; the militia statement is window-dressing.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

How can you possible consider a bunch of gun enthusiasts a well regulated militia?

Sorry. Forgot to add this part on the other reply.

They would not be unless they actually joined a militia.

The problem is, people have no opportunity to do so, since there is no true militia here in the US.

If you want to get technical, the violation of the Second Amendment here is more that we have no opportunity to join a true militia, than it is the restrictions on guns outside the militia. But it still boils down to denying people the types of guns that they have the right to have.

0 Replies

That argument would appear to put the cart before the horse. If the Consitution allows gun ownership to enable the formation of militias, yet militias no longer exist, how can you argue that the Constitution argues for gun ownership?

The rationale, per your argument, would appear not to exist...

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Jeez, oralloy, are you going through weeks of this thread and rebutting every point you disagree with? I'm impressed!

Not by your argument for guns, but by your doggedness...

I'm probably not going to do the entire lot in one sitting, but this is entertainment for me.

I have fun defending causes that I like.

I have the most fun on the Second Amendment and the finer details of the Hiroshima bombing.

It never fails that when I choose a nuclear-related ID somewhere, I end up doing primarily Second Amendment posts, and if I do a gun-related ID, I end up doing mostly Hiroshima posts....

0 Replies

So, you're an a-bomb fan, as well as a gun fan? I guess that's being consistent...

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
But as the "tired gem" notes, getting rid of guns won't solve anything, since it is people that are the problem.

Quite right. That's why it's time to start getting rid of people.

Well, I don't know that we want to do that.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

That argument would appear to put the cart before the horse. If the Consitution allows gun ownership to enable the formation of militias, yet militias no longer exist, how can you argue that the Constitution argues for gun ownership?

The rationale, per your argument, would appear not to exist...

It is more that the Constitution demands that we have the right to be in a militia if we want, and the right as a militia member to have certain types of weapons.

By not having a militia for us to join, the government violates both rights.

If we just set up a system like the Swiss have with their militia, it would satisfy the Constitution completely. It'd even be legal to keep current restrictions on guns outside militia membership.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

So, you're an a-bomb fan, as well as a gun fan? I guess that's being consistent...

I actually tend to like all weapons.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Man with gun visits your home, steals stuff, leaves again.

Man with gun visits your home, you shoot him dead, or he shoots at you because you have a gun, leaving you wounded or dead.

Which of these is better?

Depends. Since you are likely to face $50,000 in lawyer fees when you are hit with a wrongful death suit (you'll win, but you still have to pay your lawyer), the simple theft may be the best answer.

But if the man with the gun is going to kill you anyway, then you are better off shooting him.

McTag wrote:

My point is, I cannot think of any human interaction, within the law or outside of it, which is improved by having firearms present.

Those situations where you prevent a murder with a legal shooting would be an improvement.

0 Replies

Government scientists agree that 92% of men with an IQ of more than 103 and an average-sized dick, or bigger, find they have no need of, or desire to own, a gun.

0 Replies

I must be in that 8%...

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Depends. Since you are likely to face $50,000 in lawyer fees when you are hit with a wrongful death suit (you'll win, but you still have to pay your lawyer), the simple theft may be the best answer.

Keep in mind that McTag is in England, oralloy. Winning the lawsuit, to say nothing of staying out of prison, is not a forgone conclusion in that context.

0 Replies

If you shoot someone here, no matter the circumstances, you will almost never win a lawsuit.
Possession of a loaded gun, and the willingness to use it, is almost like "malice aforethought", assault with a deadly weapon, call it what you will, the judges here don't like it.
But, I am trying to address the American question in an American context. Why do so many of you shoot each other?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

But, I am trying to address the American question in an American context. Why do so many of you shoot each other?

If you had to deal with Americans every day, you'd know why.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Government scientists agree that 92% of men with an IQ of more than 103 and an average-sized dick, or bigger, find they have no need of, or desire to own, a gun.

Four out of five dentists recommend that guys who swallow should chew Dentyne.

Oh yeah, I forgot, there aren't any dentists in England. So I'll suggest you get some Dentyne.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

McTag wrote:
Government scientists agree that 92% of men with an IQ of more than 103 and an average-sized dick, or bigger, find they have no need of, or desire to own, a gun.

Four out of five dentists recommend that guys who swallow should chew Dentyne.

Oh yeah, I forgot, there aren't any dentists in England. So I'll suggest you get some Dentyne.

When you get personally abusive, it shows you're losing the argument, or the plot.

MWAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!

That reminds me though, not to grin too broadly. Smile

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

McTag wrote:
But, I am trying to address the American question in an American context. Why do so many of you shoot each other?

If you had to deal with Americans every day, you'd know why.

Very funny, joe.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

When you get personally abusive, it shows you're losing the argument, or the plot.

MWAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!

That reminds me though, not to grin too broadly.

I wasn't being abusive, merely stating fact.

0 Replies

federal assault weapons ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know