Why does an Assault Weapons ban not Require a Contitutional Amendment?

lazarus · Aug 31, 2019

tidalwave said:
I'm not really sure why people claim the 2nd amendment rights are absolute and unlimited. How many US citizens would back the view that everyone should be allowed to own chemical weapons, tanks, missile firing helicopters or vehicle mounted flame throwers? Pretty much none but the fringe (I hope).

IMO: The argument around Hi-Caps and AW is an argument about where the line is.

No one makes the argument any more that free speech or assembly rights are absolute. Why is this right different?

I mean, you can own tanks and missiles. The former if disarmed is A OK. Just can’t be registered to drive on public roads in most states (wheeler armored vehicles can be in some states). Missiles and tanks with work cannons need to have an NFA destructive device stamp, but are legal. Flamethrowers are legal in all states except California and Maryland (both of those due to fire code). I don’t see anything that would prohibit them being mounted to a vehicle.

That said, in concept I agree. I don’t want anyone except the government (and ideally I’d rather no one, but cats out of the bag) should won biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

Short of that, I think some hoops need to be jumped through for some things like explosives, artillery, armed armored vehicles, and I don’t see a reason for armed helicopters or planes. Though the later I guess if you are really stinking rich and want to target shoot from your P38 some cactus on your 50,000 acres, More power to you. So I guess a license/NFA stamp or something.

For really destructive weapons I do think there need to be hoops. But how many can afford a Gulf Stream jet and some 2.75” rocket launchers and some 20mm Vulcan cannons to get level a mall? I guess some day there could be a maniacal multimillionaire or billionaire that hatched some diabolical plan.

I do think there is a line for both what can be owned and how easy it is to get. I don’t think the line is where it should be right now toward the side of “ban and take all the guns” and not more properly towards “I can own a brand spanning new RPG7 bought at Sears over the counter.

I’ve noticed a lot of people on the left have started quoting Scalia saying the 2A isn’t unlimited (I agree). They just leave off the next sentence where he says weapons in common use ARE protected. Semiautomatic rifles and assault weapons as well as high capacity magazines are in common use.

Most semi-autos use >10 round mags. Most semiautos other than sub compact pistols take magazines larger than that. I’d imagine in the billions.

There’s >20 million ARs and AKs in the US. More than 30 million total centerfire detachable magazine semiauto rifles. Probably >50 million semiauto long guns.

That’s pretty damn common use.

lazarus · Aug 31, 2019

DP12 said:
Marxist indoctrination has done stunning things to the notion of liberty. And I don't mean that in a complimentary way.

If you think people shouldn't have certain weapons and the government should have overwhelming power, all you need to do is gather up a super-majority of the Senate and the states and get rid of that pesky 2A in the Bill of Rights. As others have pointed out, that won't eliminate the natural right to keep and bear arms, but tyrants tend not to care about such things. The living Constitution/pure democracy fools think just because everyone they know thinks a certain way, nobody could possibly be opposed. But that's just navel-gazing ignorance.

Free speech and freedom of assembly are absolute natural rights. That your friends accept that their rights can be trod upon doesn't change that fact.

So threatening someone’s life is a right? Because that’s speech. A riot is assembly. No, none of the rights are absolute. Since we started as a country there has been a balancing test between that right and what’s best for the country and for every right except the 2nd we’ve attempted to infringe on a right as little as possible for the common good.

Banning private ownership of nukes is an infringement, but I’ll go with a necessary one.

There is no such thing as natural rights. Just what the government allows you. You can yell about your right to self defense all you want as the police drag you away. You can scream about freedom of speech as a judge orders you muzzled.

If you want to talk about moral rights, I’ll absolutely give you that. But a moral right doesn’t stop the government from doing whatever it’s citizens or itself have decided to do, even if it is morally wrong.

rbird7282 · Aug 31, 2019

tidalwave said:
I'm not really sure why people claim the 2nd amendment rights are absolute and unlimited. How many US citizens would back the view that everyone should be allowed to own chemical weapons, tanks, missile firing helicopters or vehicle mounted flame throwers? Pretty much none but the fringe (I hope).

IMO: The argument around Hi-Caps and AW is an argument about where the line is.

No one makes the argument any more that free speech or assembly rights are absolute. Why is this right different?

Show me (exactly) where in the Constitution does it grant government the power to restrict rights.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

blipper · Aug 31, 2019

rockstarr said:
whats going to be crazy is if trump loses the election next year, the run is going to almost be humorous on ar-15's

My personal run has already started. I'm buying magazines too. I anticipate the Maryland General Assemby will come up with some "new ideas" this coming January as well.

BeoBill · Aug 31, 2019

teratos said:
I stated this earlier in the thread. A right that existed before quill was put to parchment cannot be undone by an amendment.

I stand corrected.

BeoBill · Aug 31, 2019

lazarus said:
I mean, you can own tanks and missiles. The former if disarmed is A OK. Just can’t be registered to drive on public roads in most states (wheeler armored vehicles can be in some states). Missiles and tanks with work cannons need to have an NFA destructive device stamp, but are legal. Flamethrowers are legal in all states except California and Maryland (both of those due to fire code). I don’t see anything that would prohibit them being mounted to a vehicle.

That said, in concept I agree. I don’t want anyone except the government (and ideally I’d rather no one, but cats out of the bag) should won biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

Short of that, I think some hoops need to be jumped through for some things like explosives, artillery, armed armored vehicles, and I don’t see a reason for armed helicopters or planes. Though the later I guess if you are really stinking rich and want to target shoot from your P38 some cactus on your 50,000 acres, More power to you. So I guess a license/NFA stamp or something.

For really destructive weapons I do think there need to be hoops. But how many can afford a Gulf Stream jet and some 2.75” rocket launchers and some 20mm Vulcan cannons to get level a mall? I guess some day there could be a maniacal multimillionaire or billionaire that hatched some diabolical plan.

I do think there is a line for both what can be owned and how easy it is to get. I don’t think the line is where it should be right now toward the side of “ban and take all the guns” and not more properly towards “I can own a brand spanning new RPG7 bought at Sears over the counter.

I’ve noticed a lot of people on the left have started quoting Scalia saying the 2A isn’t unlimited (I agree). They just leave off the next sentence where he says weapons in common use ARE protected. Semiautomatic rifles and assault weapons as well as high capacity magazines are in common use.

Most semi-autos use >10 round mags. Most semiautos other than sub compact pistols take magazines larger than that. I’d imagine in the billions.

There’s >20 million ARs and AKs in the US. More than 30 million total centerfire detachable magazine semiauto rifles. Probably >50 million semiauto long guns.

That’s pretty damn common use.

One of the biggest hurdles you forgot in your scenario is cost. How many millions does an F-16 cost? You can buy one if you can afford the tab for buying and operating it. Same goes for armored vehicles and other MILSURP. Surplus tracked vehicles were fairly common doing work in the sticks right after WW II...

BeoBill · Aug 31, 2019

lazarus said:
So threatening someone’s life is a right? Because that’s speech. A riot is assembly. No, none of the rights are absolute. Since we started as a country there has been a balancing test between that right and what’s best for the country and for every right except the 2nd we’ve attempted to infringe on a right as little as possible for the common good.

Banning private ownership of nukes is an infringement, but I’ll go with a necessary one.

There is no such thing as natural rights. Just what the government allows you. You can yell about your right to self defense all you want as the police drag you away. You can scream about freedom of speech as a judge orders you muzzled.

If you want to talk about moral rights, I’ll absolutely give you that. But a moral right doesn’t stop the government from doing whatever it’s citizens or itself have decided to do, even if it is morally wrong.

You're conflating rightful acts with consequences. They follow one another inexorably, and are two distinct concepts. You have every right to "teh stoopid", but be prepared for the consequences that follow. You may be able to get out from under the latter if you're "connected" or your lawyer is good enough.

bluedog46 · Aug 31, 2019

kshaw said:
I was reading an old legal opinion (1995) on the Fourteenth Amendment by the DOJ. The opinion was made in response to an attempt by Congress to stop birthright citizenship for aliens through a statute. The legal opinion opined that this proposed statute was unconstitutional and that the change could only be made by an amendment to the Constitution. Using the same logic for the Second Amendment, how can Congress create a ban on "Assault Weapons" or similar restrictions without an amendment to the Constitution?

It will sound funny but the reason is white liberals. Without them there would not be enough democrats in congress to vote for crap like that.

ANd birthright citizenship is what got us into this mess along with a few other things done during that period by yankees ( no offense to the patriots)

tidalwave · Sep 1, 2019

bluedog46 said:
It will sound funny but the reason is white liberals. Without them there would not be enough democrats in congress to vote for crap like that.

ANd birthright citizenship is what got us into this mess along with a few other things done during that period by yankees ( no offense to the patriots)

Can we now declare this thread far enough off topic enough to lock or move somewhere else?

rascal · Sep 2, 2019

delaware_export said:
by the supreme courts logic in heller, any firearm "in common use" and useful to a militia is protected. and while no real count exists, the estimates i've heard are the there are over 12m ar pattern rifles. though that number is probably much higher. add ak pattern rifles, and various other mag fed rifles of other makes, on it's face, the law would seem to be in jeopardy.

At that point expect the gun control advocates to admit what we all already know, which is half of gun owners won't tell some surveyor calling or banging in their door that they own a gun and US gun ownership is likely 60% of households -- at which point AR will be relatively "uncommon."

also expect them to argue that people who own ARs own lots of them and that 12 million ARs don't mean 12 million owners but maybe four or five million.

rascal · Sep 2, 2019

tidalwave said:
I'm not really sure why people claim the 2nd amendment rights are absolute and unlimited. How many US citizens would back the view that everyone should be allowed to own chemical weapons, tanks, missile firing helicopters or vehicle mounted flame throwers? Pretty much none but the fringe (I hope).

IMO: The argument around Hi-Caps and AW is an argument about where the line is.

No one makes the argument any more that free speech or assembly rights are absolute. Why is this right different?

Wow, what a nonsense statement.

Free speech limits are post harm sanctions on the person who committed the proven material harm and only them -- not the entire citizenry.

Please take either civics 101 or logic 101.

rascal · Sep 2, 2019

tidalwave said:
Can we now declare this thread far enough off topic enough to lock or move somewhere else?

you made a crazy and untrue statement, obviously not understanding constitutional law on the first amendment. You are suggesting that if someone in Californian libels someone, than all US residents need to be muzzled, and now want discussion "locked"?

cowboy321 · Sep 2, 2019

rascal said:
Wow, what a nonsense statement.

Free speech limits are post harm sanctions on the person who committed the proven material harm and only them -- not the entire citizenry.

Please take either civics 101 or logic 101.

All I see are extended interviews with parents of children dying or disfigured by AK and AR 15 bullets. The enthusiasm for wider ownership of these firearms is getting lower by the day. The activists are on the streets with signs and growing political power. The angry white man with an AK is increasingly viewed as a pest to be feared by soccer moms and police from the FBI on down--- Breaking News

tidalwave · Sep 3, 2019

tidalwave · Sep 3, 2019

bluedog46 · Sep 3, 2019

Because of liberal whites. That combined with lax immigration and soft on crime policies ( like philadelphias white liberal DA) are the reason these groups have power.

Joe Marino · Sep 4, 2019

Thé ban is coming. Maybe not now but in a couple years. The left knows there are 20 millon of these rifles out there and they want them confiscated. How they accomplish that is the question. Trump Will be the last Republican president and within 20 years there Will be à permanent dem congress and senate. Very scary future.

rbird7282 · Sep 4, 2019

Joe Marino said:
Thé ban is coming. Maybe not now but in a couple years. The left knows there are 20 millon of these rifles out there and they want them confiscated. How they accomplish that is the question. Trump Will be the last Republican president and within 20 years there Will be à permanent dem congress and senate. Very scary future.

Complete nonsense except for the part about the Left wanting them confiscated.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rascal · Sep 4, 2019

tidalwave said:
.

Again that is not factually true either. Do you even know how libel and defamation laws work in the US?

bluedog46 · Sep 4, 2019

Joe Marino said:
Thé ban is coming. Maybe not now but in a couple years. The left knows there are 20 millon of these rifles out there and they want them confiscated. How they accomplish that is the question. Trump Will be the last Republican president and within 20 years there Will be à permanent dem congress and senate. Very scary future.

IF we do not do something about illegal immigration or they get an amnesty i will concur with you on that. i have been saying that since 2010 and am even not welcomed on a couple web forums in spite of much of what I have said coming true. I predicted el paso in 2010 ( that is one i wish i was wrong on but said there will be people tired of the crap)

Democrats will continue to pander and are even trying to get every felon to be able to vote even while in jail now in some places.

Why does an Assault Weapons ban not Require a Contitutional Amendment?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Banned

Banned

Ultimate Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics