Latest Assault rifle ban proposal 11/10/17, another argument to try

[myblueheaven]

First, let me say I wish i was more eloquent in my writing and could convey my thoughts better. But here goes. My take on AR15's and assault rifles in general and why i believe they are protected under the 2nd amendment is simple.

Some don't seem to get the big picture. Again, the 2nd amendment isn't about your personal home defense or hunting rights. A pistol or hunting rifle is all you need for that. First issue that anti gun lobby uses in regards to why assault weapons should be banned. This is a big misconception with many people. That's why the second amendment was worded the way it was. No where does it mention personal defense or hunting or collecting etc. If it did the anti gun movement could have made assault rifles illegal a long time ago. Any American has the right to bare arms("arms is the word in the amendment) to be used in a militia if necessary, but individually citizens are allowed to keep these arms. A little pistol won't cut it nor your hunting rifle as a militia. The word militia. is derived from the word military. An AR15 is a military style weapon, with only one different feature. It can only fire semi automatic...which is the acceptable difference and the compromise the people have settled on for decades and what the forefathers intended as having arms appropriate for a militia. Just as the colonist had the latest weapons of the time to equal their enemy of the time. If the Brits back then had assault rifles...then so would the colonist. You don't arm your militia with hunting rifles or shot guns when your enemy is using assault weapons. Its kinda common sense. But just because some don't get it or agree doesn't make it unimportant and unnecessary. Changing the constitution is, in many ways, like changing the bible. Would you do that...maybe to meet your idea of what you think is more relative to" today's world" and second guess what god really intended. Maybe some people feel god made a mistake so altering the bible it is a good thing. And maybe our forefathers were morons on this one amendment so we should just change it. And while we're at it and since it wasn't so important we couldn't change it, lets keep changing the constitution to meet our modern ideas of how things should be. Sure, why not? What could a bunch of old time ancient people from the 1700's know about anyway. Everything is different. Life is different and we people are evolved and crime is gone and corruption doesn't happen as well as there are no tyrannical dictators anymore, right? Yeah, sure. Using the words of the second amendment ensures and guarantees the right to have a modern gun equal to any weapon that may be used against us. My 2 cents.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

holy wall of text, batman.

Break that up a little.

So we can read it.

 

[MEHavey]

the right to have a modern gun equal to any weapon that may be used against us.

"Within limits"...... ^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^







* your own 155 self-propelled might be a bit much

 

[1911 guy]

A 155 self propelled howitzer would be too much for me, I don't have that much money or that many friends. But if you have the money to buy and feed it as well as the friends or family for a crew served weapon, why not?

When the Founders wrote the 2A, they intended the populace to have parity with any force that may threaten them. This includes standing armies.

 

[Sistema1927]

When the BoR was written there were individuals who had private artillery as well as private warships. Yes, the Founders expected that the People should have weaponry on par with government, and that is what scares the pants off of politicians today.

This is one reason why NFA 1934, and all other restrictions on automatic weapons, are un-Constitutional. Same thing goes for any "Sporting Use' tests.

 

[AlexanderA]

The OP's argument is not new, and few here would disagree with it. However, the current court jurisprudence, and particularly the Heller case, doesn't support it. Otherwise, state-level "assault weapons" bans would have been thrown out on constitutional grounds, and they haven't been.

 

[jrmiddleton425]

I can't argue with parts of this. Except...

No where does it mention personal defense or hunting or collecting etc.

Except that self-defense IS a protected use, and this is settled law.

A little pistol won't cut it...

Depends on the branch of the service; if your primary or some collateral duty requires that you be armed, you will as often as not have a pistol. To qualify for the Coast Guard pistol team in the 1960s, you had to qualify on the rifle course at 200, 300 and 500 yards with a Navy Match 1911 .45...as told to me by my CG Aux mentor who did it.

You don't arm your militia with hunting rifles or shot guns when your enemy is using assault weapons. Its kinda common sense.

Again, depending on the branch of the service, shotguns are used FAR more often than rifles.

 

[kozak6]

We need paragraphs.

Also, the biblical argument is not a strong one.

The Constitution is a legal document that is very difficult to legitimately modify.

Whereas, all it takes to modify the Bible is a razor blade and some glue. Furthermore, some religious groups actually do modify the Bible to better conform to their beliefs, and some groups even add entire supplemental volumes. Although, I suspect further discussion might be off topic.

 

[Theohazard]

Please, break up your huge wall of text into paragraphs so we can read it.

Also, you use the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" interchangeably. They are not the same thing. The former is a valid technical term that's often misused, and the latter is a made-up political term for scary-looking guns.

If someone doesn't know something as basic as the difference between those two terms, it's usually a good indication that they don't know very much about this subject as a whole.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Also, the biblical argument is not a strong one.

The Constitution is a legal document that is very difficult to legitimately modify.

Keeping in mind that prevailing in the current political culture requires changing minds of a few swing votes and undecided people, I think the Biblical argument can be productive to that end. People who believe the Bible are still a significant political force, and many of them remain on the fence with regard to RKBA issues. They do tend to be swayed by pointing out that the Constitution is best viewed as a covenant or legal contract that is best interpreted according to its original intent (like the Bible). Asking if it makes sense to reinterpret a marriage covenant or a business contract differently from the original intent is a powerful argument for them.

People who believe the Bible may have differing interpretations from each other, but they do tend to believe theirs is the most consistent with the original intent with which it was written. Therefore, the Biblical argument can be persuasive as it relates with the need to interpret the Constitution by the original intent. I'd much rather keep the debate within the boundaries of the original intent of the Constitution than viewing it as a "living breathing document."

No Christian wants to view their marriage covenant or contract as a "living breathing" agreement with changeable stipulations, nor do they want to view the Bible that way. Locking down those swing votes can be powerful in the current political climate.

 

[AlexanderA]

Here's the problem with foundational documents, such as the Constitution or the Bible, that have been around for centuries: although the original text may not change, there are inevitable "extra-textual accretions" -- interpretations -- that build up. If a layman reads the original text without reference to these precedents and interpretations, he may go seriously astray. This is why we need lawyers and clergymen to help us navigate these thickets. In particular, regarding the Bill of Rights, none of the enumerated rights is absolute and unqualified. (Freedom of speech, for example, stops when it comes to libel, slander, and "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.") Much as we would like for the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms to be absolute and unqualified, it clearly isn't. (See the Heller opinion for more details.)

We have to differentiate between the law as it is and the law as we would like it to be. Conflating these two is not persuasive at all.

 

[PBR Streetgang]

qualified out to 500 yards with a 1911?

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Here's the problem with foundational documents, such as the Constitution or the Bible, that have been around for centuries: although the original text may not change, there are inevitable "extra-textual accretions" -- interpretations -- that build up. If a layman reads the original text without reference to these precedents and interpretations, he may go seriously astray. This is why we need lawyers and clergymen to help us navigate these thickets. In particular, regarding the Bill of Rights, none of the enumerated rights is absolute and unqualified. (Freedom of speech, for example, stops when it comes to libel, slander, and "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.") Much as we would like for the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms to be absolute and unqualified, it clearly isn't. (See the Heller opinion for more details.)

We have to differentiate between the law as it is and the law as we would like it to be. Conflating these two is not persuasive at all.

I agree that such is this case now, but I believe that all of those precedents are what have led us astray (both Constitutionally and Biblically)

 

[grampajack]

According to the Bill of Rights, we do have the unlimited right to keep and bear arms. This was the states' response to the Constitution, which they felt was too broad. They felt that the Constitution gave the federal government too much power, while simultaneously not guaranteeing individual liberties and states' rights.

A major point of contention was Article 1's provision for a federally controlled militia, which they felt was too close to a standing army, something that at that time was not even an option, not to mention no one would have accepted the federal government having full time professionally armed men at its disposal. Bear in mind that a good deal of the fighting in the Revolution was between militias on both sides, as the loyalists had formed their own militias under King George. In practice, these militias were indistinguishable from regular soldiers, as they had all the training and equipment of the professional soldiers from England. Once activated and sent to war, a militia becomes a standing army practically overnight.

Pretty much everyone agreed, however, that the militia was necessary to repel an invasion, so the compromise was struck to grant citizens the unlimited right to keep and bear arms so that they could put down the militia if it were to be abused by the federal government as a means to oppress the people. You have to remember that King George had just tried to take away their guns, followed by deploying soldiers to occupy the colonies. They didn't want the federal government to have that option.

So there it is. Both in practice and in theory, the Bill of Rights does mean to grant us as private citizens the right to keep and bear any weapon, just as the militia must do. That is only logical. If we're to keep the militia in check, then we can't do so by fighting them with lesser weapons. If they have assault rifles then we must also have assault rifles. If they have grenade launchers then we must have them, as well. Obviously.

What this means in an age of nuclear weapons, jet aircraft, laser guided bombs, etc., I do not know. Even scarier, the government has a monopoly on cyber warfare. They could probably crush us just by hacking and destroying our various systems, without ever having to fire a single shot. That's not even taking into account their vast network of intelligence, counterintelligence, and psychological warfare divisions. To me, the NSA and CIA are far more terrifying than any standing army. We're quickly heading for a technocracy that's going to make standing armies practically obsolete, and you don't even want to imagine what's going to happen when AI hits the fan in a few years. The scuttlebutt is actually that the Pentagon already has an AI controlled super computer that can outperform their generals. If it doesn't exist already, then it's right around the corner according to Moore's law.

So obviously we need to rethink how we're going to keep such power in check. The first step is to go back to the Constitution as it is written and defederalize our military, reassigning them to national guard units. We also need to sever the government's direct control of the national guard and place it back under the sole command of the states. That will compartmentalize all of the big bad stuff that is too expensive and unwieldy for private citizens to be able to handle. This way we have a unified fighting force with universal training, as dictated in Article 1, that can repel and invasion, yet can also be turned on the federal government if the governors sense a power grab coming from Washington.

Then there is the issue of nuclear, chemical, biological, and large ordnance. Obviously we don't want Joe six pack having nuclear weapons in his basement. Even more frightening, advanced weapons in private hands would undoubtedly lead to a serious disparity of power between the average person and the elite. Imagine robber barons with private armies. So I believe such weapons do need to be restricted to the states.

Well, there's my take on it. It's not gonna happen, though. We're too far removed from our founders' original design, and the public and even our well meaning politicians, of whom there are now so few, don't really understand that original vision anyways. In practice, the Constitution is already dead. I believe the reason the federal government is coming after guns is to ensure a peaceful transition of power moving from capitalism to a communist technocracy. At its highest levels, though, I don't think they really care. Chaos can be used to their advantage, so they would gladly take an uprising or two.

I think the reason Washington seems so concerned about guns in this country is that it's simply a political tool. You look at a country like England where guns have already been outlawed, and the politicians there don't have any leverage with it. Here in the US, though, both parties are kept in power by the fight over guns (e.g. "You have to vote Republican if you wanna keep your guns," or, "You've gotta vote Democrat if you care about your children's safety.") I believe it is their intent to keep the pendulum swinging back and forth; that is, in reality, they have no intent of outlawing guns, as the debate over gun control is one of the most powerful tools at the disposal of both parties.

Don't get me wrong, though. In the end, they do intend to outlaw guns completely. I think they see them primarily as a psychological threat, that having a gun makes people feel more independent. Here in the US, if something goes bump in the night, gun owners feel empowered. In countries without private self defense weapons, they cower behind quadruple dead bolted doors and pray for the arrival of the police. It's all about making people emotionally reliant on the state. It's the same mentality that prohibits kids from defending themselves in schools. In countries with strict gun control, that is actually imposed on their entire society. They've not only outlawed guns, they've outlawed the very act of self defense.

 

[AlexanderA]

According to the Bill of Rights, we do have the unlimited right to keep and bear arms.

Unfortunately, the courts don't agree with you. And in the final analysis, what the courts say is a lot more important than what you or I think. That's why I said, "we have to differentiate between the law as it is and the law as we would like it to be."

 

[grampajack]

Unfortunately, the courts don't agree with you. And in the final analysis, what the courts say is a lot more important than what you or I think. That's why I said, "we have to differentiate between the law as it is and the law as we would like it to be."

The law currently contradicts itself. The Constitution says one thing, and our politicians and judges say another. However, the Constitution is the highest law in the land, so it trumps all other laws wherever there is a conflict. What we have currently is a lawless federal government that has gone completely rogue. That's not what I think; that's just how it is. What I think has nothing to do with anything.

 

[danez71]

The law currently contradicts itself. The Constitution says one thing, and our politicians and judges say another. However, the Constitution is the highest law in the land, so it trumps all other laws wherever there is a conflict. What we have currently is a lawless federal government that has gone completely rogue. That's not what I think; that's just how it is. What I think has nothing to do with anything.

I don't believe the BOR are laws; they are Rights in which place restrictions on the Federal Govt. As originally written, restrictions on the Feds, not the States.

It really wasn't pushed down to the States until the 14th Amendment and even then it was only partially pushed down to the States in dealing with a couple of the BORs.

The 2nd wasnt one of them.

Currently we are at the point of determining whether or not the 2nd does directly flow down to the States.

 

[AlexanderA]

However, the Constitution is the highest law in the land, so it trumps all other laws wherever there is a conflict.

Yes, that's what the Supremacy Clause says. But, this "highest law of the land" does not necessarily consist of the words within the four corners of the document. Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Every word in it has to be read in the light of the relevant Supreme Court decisions.

Currently we are at the point of determining whether or not the 2nd does directly flow down to the States.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) held that the 2nd Amendment was "incorporated" so that it does apply to the states. However, that's the 2nd Amendment as restricted by the Heller case -- basically, that handguns in the home, to be used for self-defense, cannot be absolutely prohibited. They can be licensed and registered, and other categories of weapons can be prohibited, depending on the mercy of the legislature. Any further clarification depends on future litigation.

 

[grampajack]

I don't believe the BOR are laws; they are Rights in which place restrictions on the Federal Govt. As originally written, restrictions on the Feds, not the States.

It really wasn't pushed down to the States until the 14th Amendment and even then it was only partially pushed down to the States in dealing with a couple of the BORs.

The 2nd wasnt one of them.

Currently we are at the point of determining whether or not the 2nd does directly flow down to the States.

The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution, and as such carry just as much weight as the original articles. They are in fact laws. Not guidelines, not suggestions, not guiding principles, not living documents. Laws. Hard, binding laws, set in stone, that are no more living than any other law on the books anywhere.

Tell me, was the 18th amendment a suggestion? Did it simply give the government the right to outlaw liquor if and when they felt like it? Did it say the courts could pick and choose which alcoholic beverages they wanted to be included in the ban? No!

Yes, that's what the Supremacy Clause says. But, this "highest law of the land" does not necessarily consist of the words within the four corners of the document. Ever since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Every word in it has to be read in the light of the relevant Supreme Court decisions.

As I said, we are dealing with a rogue, lawless government, and have been for quite some time. This stuff didn't just happen overnight. Much of it was set in motion not very long after the revolution. The mistake our founder's made was placing ultimate power in the hands of unelected officials without term limits. Basically we have turned our judges into monarchs.

 

[danez71]

The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution, and as such carry just as much weight as the original articles. They are in fact laws. Not guidelines, not suggestions, not guiding principles, not living documents. .....

Really?

Specifically, what laws are the BORs amending?


The Constitution is a frame work of principals and outline how our Govt works, and delegates authority, among other things. The BORs were to clarify that frame work of authority.

 

[danez71]

Tell me, was the 18th amendment a suggestion? Did it simply give the government the right to outlaw liquor if and when they felt like it? Did it say the courts could pick and choose which alcoholic beverages they wanted to be included in the ban? No!

.

Much if that is, Yes!

The National Prohibition Act, also known as thw Volstead Act is what set down methods for enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment and defined which "intoxicating liquors" were prohibited, and which were excluded from prohibition (e.g., for medical and religious purposes)

 

[MEHavey]

danez[/B]]Specifically, what laws are the BORs amending?

It was the Constitution itself that was amended with additional provisions, not changes to existing ones.

 

[danez71]

It was the Constitution itself that was amended with additional provisions, not changes to existing ones.

More like additional restrictions on he Feds.

BORs; not BOLs

 

[AlexanderA]

As I said, we are dealing with a rogue, lawless government, and have been for quite some time.

Be careful here. Our duly constituted government carries the presumption of legitimacy. If you want to dispute that, you run the risk of being labeled an insurrectionist. As gun owners, we need to work within the system, not call the whole system into question. Let's not be placed in the same nutcase category as the "sovereign citizens."

 

[grampajack]

Be careful here. Our duly constituted government carries the presumption of legitimacy. If you want to dispute that, you run the risk of being labeled an insurrectionist. As gun owners, we need to work within the system, not call the whole system into question. Let's not be placed in the same nutcase category as the "sovereign citizens."

How is advocating the rule of law being an insurrectionist? I simply demand of my government that they follow and enforce the law as it is written, not as they would like it to be written.