Assault rifle ban will fail without objective definitions because...

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by modernpaladin, Aug 9, 2019.

  1. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you don’t actually know. Thought so!
     
  2. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Know what?
    Definitely dont know where it grans rights.
    Point it out
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2019
  3. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is not so much as a single sentence within the united states constitution that lends credence to the notion of rights being constructs of the government, and provided to the people by the authority of government.
     
    Reality and squidward like this.
  4. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :above::above::above::above: This
     
    Reality likes this.
  5. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.

    I'm no scholar but that seems pretty cut and dry to me.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2019
    Reality and An Taibhse like this.
  6. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lets see if you can explain how well regulated militia relates to the current world with particular reference to " well regulated"
     
  7. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the second amendment isn't relevent to the gun control discussion?
     
  8. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The second amendment does not grant rights to the people. Rather it serves to recognize the right, acknowledges it as pre-existing, and restrict the authority of government to try and infringe upon that right.
     
    Toggle Almendro and Reality like this.
  9. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The term assault rifle when used in its proper context, militarily or by its specific functionality, has a generally accepted definition with the firearm manufacturing community. In more casual usage, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated or confused with the term assault rifle. The use of the term "assault weapon" is also highly controversial, as critics assert that the term is a media invention, or a term that is intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading the public to believe that assault weapons (as defined in legislation) are full automatic firearms when they are not...
    http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Assault_rifle
     
  10. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well regulated means "in working order". A militia in working order is able to turn out, armed and equipped as soldiers bearing ordinary military equipment, at a moment's notice. Arms suitable as ordinary military equipment proliferated in private hands serves that purpose.

    Additionally: Your asking how a prefatory clause modifies an operative clause reflects a lack of understanding of grammar.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
    Toggle Almendro and Well Bonded like this.
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since citizens owned their own weapons of war and there was never a federal ban on it from the founding the intent is pretty clear.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
  12. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's see if you can point out where being in a militia is a requirement for bearing arms.
     
    Toggle Almendro likes this.
  13. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In CA, those are already considered a separate class of firearm called AOW. (Any other weapon) They are banned. Those who owned them had to register them and cannot sell or transfer them.

    The AR pistol on the bottom is considered a SBR if it touches your shoulder. (Short barrel rifle) The moment it touches your shoulder, you become a felon.

    Of course, no one can explain how any of these laws would prevent a murder, but at least California is an example of Democrats getting anything they want.
     
  14. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Surely you can read the second amendment which says in it's simplest most logical interpretation that the justification for civilian weapons was to have a well regulated militia.And of course that justification is now obsolete since America has a standing army.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  15. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry you are totally incorrect.
     
  16. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The founding fathers were smart enough to allow a well regulated militia to have weapons since America did not have a standing army. There was a solid reason for armed, trained civilians back in those days.

    Funny how strict historical context interpretation of the Constitution disappears when Conservative contemplate gun control.
     
    rcfoolinca288 likes this.
  17. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the founding fathers just threw that " well regulated militia" in as a joke.
     
    rcfoolinca288 likes this.
  18. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Grammatical ignorance aside how does a bunch of ill trained civilians with firepower translate into " in working order" as applied to the term " militia"
     
  19. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Surely you can point out the requirement
     
  20. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, the founders stated the militia would be 'well regulated' but throughout the writings it is clear they always allowed citizens to own 'weapons of war'. The reasoning behind that has never changed.
     
    squidward likes this.
  21. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Try to make sense. If we have no need for a well regulated militia the rational for civilians having weapons of war is gone.
     
  22. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not a prerequisite
     
  23. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    " 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."

    Pretty simple isn't it. If the need for a well regulated militia disappears and is no longer necessary for the security of America the need for the people to keep and bear arms no longer exists.
     
    Split likes this.
  24. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure is. Read it again unless of course you want to argue " being necessary"
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Far from it. Sure, the left wants to have central control dictate what the states can or cannot do but this is still the United States of America, not the communist central control the left wants.
     

Share This Page