Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Trump Announces He’s a Few Weeks From Banning Bump Stocks
Source:
From The Trenches/10th Amendment Center
URL Source: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.c ... rom-banning-bump-stocks/235057
Published: Oct 19, 2018
Author: Joe Wolverton, II
Post Date: 2018-10-20 14:17:05 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 23586
Comments: 148
Tenth Amendment Center – by Joe Wolverton, II President Donald Trump promises that he is “just a few weeks” from issuing regulations that would outlaw bump fire stocks. “We’re knocking out bump stocks,” Trump said at a White House news conference on October 1. “We’re in the final two or three weeks, and I’ll be able to write out bump stocks.” This Republican president’s promise to “write out” bump fire stocks sounds suspiciously like his Democratic predecessor’s claim to possess the power to use his phone and pen to make law. “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Barack Obama proclaimed in 2014. “And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions,” he added. This two-party, one policy situation is decades old. Regarding the presidential penchant for disarming the American people, I am reminded of a story I wrote in January 2014: “In an executive ‘Fact Sheet’ issued January 3 by the White House, the president purports to establish new guidelines for “keep[ing] Guns out of Potentially Dangerous Hands.” NOTE: Originally published at The New American Magazine and reposted here with permission from the author. The next paragraph of that story can now be applied to both President Obama and President Trump: “What President Obama — a former part-time law professor — seems not to understand is that every time he issues some executive order, presidential finding, or ‘fact sheet,’ he is exceeding the constitutional limits on his power and thereby violating his oath of office.” All you need to do is change the last name of the president and change the words “fact sheet” to “memorandum” and the story is no different. President Trump is exercising that same unconstitutional “authority” to infringe significantly on the rights protected by the Second Amendment, specifically, the right to “keep and bear arms.” Trump’s attack on the Second Amendment in the form of banning bump fire stocks should come as no surprise. In fact, back in February the president issued an official memorandum ordering the Department of Justice “to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” Lest there be any misunderstanding, the memo identifies the device in question as “bump fire stocks and similar devices.” For those of you counting on the National Rifle Association (NRA) to come to the defense of the Second Amendment, you probably don’t want to read any further. The NRA released the following statement regarding federal regulation of bump fire stocks: The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. So, no help from the NRA for Americans who believed the group to be defenders of the Second Amendment. Of course, such a statement isn’t surprising considering that the very same press release reveals that the NRA doesn’t understand the purpose of the Second Amendment. “In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans’ Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities,” the statement reads. Wrong. Our Founding Fathers were not concerned about protecting a man’s right to keep his home and family safe from “danger.” Our Founding Fathers protected the individual’s right to keep and bear arms because they knew that such was the only way to avoid being enslaved by tyrants. They knew from their study of history that a tyrant’s first move was always to disarm the people, and generally to claim it was for their safety, and to establish a standing army so as to convince the people that they didn’t need arms to protect themselves, for the tyrant and his professional soldiers would do it for them. Sound familiar? Consider this gem from William Blackstone, a man of immense and undeniable influence on the Founders and their understanding of rights, civil and natural. In Volume I of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone declares “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” Would anyone in America — or the world, for that matter — argue that the “sanctions of society and laws” are sufficient to “restrain violence” or oppression? Thus, the people must be armed. Commenting on Blackstone’s Commentaries, eminent Founding Era jurist and constitutional scholar St. George Tucker put a finer point on the purpose of protecting the natural right of all people to keep and bear arms. He wrote: This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. Enough said. As for President Trump, he has done many things consistent with his solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. His issuing of a regulation to shrink the scope of the Second Amendment is not one of them, however. It’s this easy: Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution grants federal lawmaking power exclusively to the Congress. Regardless of the word he uses to describe it, any time the president orders the executive branch to create law by executive decree, he is usurping the authority of the legislature. Finally, in his memo, President Trump writes that he was motivated to begin the process of banning bump fire stocks “after the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017.” No matter how many people are clamoring for protection, no matter how many madmen go on murderous sprees, the president is not constitutionally authorized to take “executive actions” that encroach upon rights protected by the Constitution — in this case, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Apart from his work as a journalist, Joe Wolverton, II is a professor of American Government at Chattanooga State and was a practicing attorney until 2009. He lives in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Since 2000, Joe has been a featured contributor to The New American magazine. Most recently, he has written a cover story article on the Tea Party movement, as well as a five-part series on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-48) not displayed.
.
.
.
#49. To: sneakypete (#46)
Yep, 100 years before they were invented, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Mmmmhmmm. Seems legit.
Ok, let's play then. Machine guns are protected by the Second Amendment, you say. How about nukes? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee your right to have a personal nuke in your basement?
The founding fathers knew that wanabe tyrants will always exist, so arms parity with the military. Come and take them, Piers13!
So, the Second Amendment guarantees your right to possess your own personal nuke?
I've have a zero 'Unexpected Event' record. That's swell. But do you claim that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to your own personal nuke?
[sneakypete #45] No,they haven't. It would be un-Constitutional to ban them,so the goobermint came up with a permit system called a "Class 3 Licence" to buy,own,or possess full-auto weapons and "weapons of mass destruction". [sneakypete #46] That's because you don't know WTF you are talking about. These are THE very weapons the Second Amendment was written to protect. The Second Amendment protects those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Your position that a ban of machineguns would be unconstitutional is explicitly overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008).
No, it's a God given natural right.
The U.S. Constitution does not protect those rights. Enjoy your bombs in the afterlife.
bombs in the afterlife. Yeah, sure Mohammed.
Yes,in FACT,it IS legitimate. The 2nd Amendment was written so that US citizens would have ready access to military-grade weapons in case any future governments seized power. They realized that the people could not fight a professional military without military grade weapons. They even wrote in discussion that individual Americans would be guaranteed unrestricted access to "weapons such as carried by typical soldiers". In Colonial times this mean smooth-bore muskets as a MINIMUM/ Crew-served weapons were maintained by villages and cities,for issue to the militia if they were called up. The exception to this were ships,which were allowed to carry cannons. The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting,gun collecting,or target shooting. They are just side benefits. The 2nd Amendment exists so American citizens would have the ability to defeat a standing army if it ever became necessary.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
How about nukes? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee your right to have a personal nuke in your basement? Are nukes individual weapons,numbnuts?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
While it seems clear your understanding of firearms is immense,could you help out those of us who aren't as knowledgeable as you by splaining to usens how a automatic rifle is the equivalent of a nuclear bomb or missile?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Heller is not only wrong,it is un-Constitutional. It was a anti-gun brain fart ran though a cherry-picked anti-gun district court in Washington,DC. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. Machine guns were first issued to US troops in the 1800's,and this just goes to show you how freaking ignorant of reality the DC court was and is. . We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Legalize mumbo-jumbo bullshit with NO historical fact behind it. There were NO legal restrictions on weapons before the 1930's,and in FACT you could order a machine gun from a Sears catalog if you wanted. That communist bastard Roosevelt and his commie wife-cousin were behind this. This is a PERFECT example of our courts using their power to break the laws themselves. The only reason these laws still stand is because no court that has the authority to overrule them is ever allowed to take the case.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Yes,it does. The fact that corrupt judges use their political biases to break the laws themselves is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment says what it says,not what anti-gun asshats in black robes want it to say.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No, it's a God given natural right. WRONG! Nuclear bombs are CLEARLY crew-served weapons,and the 2nd Amendment only refers and applies to weapons "typical of those carried by the common soldier."
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
The 2nd Amendment says what it says,not what anti-gun asshats in black robes want it to say. The interpretation of the Second Amendment given by the U.S. Supreme Court is the recognized law of the land. Nobody gives a crap what some cranky old asshat blogger has to say. This is the irrationality of libertarians. They think their hairbrained opinions are the law. Reality says it just ain't so.
That's bass ackwards. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, Syllabus 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Reading the laws would show you just how ignorant of the law you are. When machineguns were first issued to U.S. troops is irrelevant. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. You have no clue what you are talking about. It is just typical libertarian nonsense. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627-28 (2008)
So, to be clear, you believe that the 2nd Amendment protects, and the US must Constitutionally allow, the private possession of nuclear weapons, by those who can afford them, of course. George Soros, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto and the Teachers' Unions, and you, have the God- given right, in your mind, to posses nuclear weapons. The only reason they can have one and you can't, according to you, is that they can afford to get one, or ten, and you can't. You have indeed taken your belief system to its logical conclusion. This puts you on a desert island with few other people - certainly not enough to actually defend that interpretation against the rest of the public, who recognise that we cannot permit the private possession of nuclear weapons for reasons of our security, freedom and continued lives. So, since YOU won't draw the line, any line, you have effectively neutralised your own voice. If you really care about gun rights, you should come away from the extremist position, and figure out a way, philosophically, to draw a line. If the Constitution says that George Soros and Goldman Sachs and the Archdiocese of New York, being rich, get to have their own nukes, then we're changing the Constitution pronto. It doesn't say that, though. The Second Amendment contains a line-drawing clause: well- regulated. If you stay on the reservation of sanity, you get to have a hand in drawing that line. If you cannot draw any line, and you argue that Soros gets a nuke, and Dahmer could have his very own mustard gas arsenal, then you've grievously weakened your own ability to protect the Second Amendment, because 97% of the people can see that's insane.
Suitcase nukes can be individual weapons. So can small chemical and biological weapons. And stinger missiles.
The Second Amendment does not say "individual firearms". It says "arms". Can you not simply answer the question? Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc. You're engaging in a line-drawing exercise, which is good, because it at least makes it clear that you are on the reservation of the sane. You're doing yourself and your cause (protecting individual ownership of firearms) no favors by attacking and insulting me. I'm a natural ally. But if you cannot draw a line, a clear one, if you cannot say "No, there is no personal right to those weapons", and you have to act as though your interlocutor, me, a military veteran myself, is an idiot, a numbnuts, every other sort of thing, then you should understand that you are undercutting yourself politically. Your argument is that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to firearms. Ok. They say that positively and affirmatively. "Individual weapons" in an age of miniaturisation, doesn't get you there. There are individually deployed chemical and biological weapons. You have to be be able to say that NBC weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. You should be able to say that easily, as easily as the insults roll off your tongue. But you don't, at least not yet. And because you don't, you weaken your side. Of course, if the government has the NBC and individuals don't that means the government is stronger. If the British government had had nukes in 1776 we would not be independent. But if individuals could buy and own chemical, biological and nuclear weapons easily and freely, we wouldn't be alive either. The nature of modern weaponry is such that the government is always going to have the upper hand nowadays. That does not mean that we should take guns away from individuals.
If you take the words of the Constitution literally then yes. The constitution's words should be taken literally. The constitution isn't like the Bible which is error free.
You must realize that laws don't prevent things from happening. In spite of the WOD millions misuse and even OD from "illegal" drugs. In spite of tough NYC/Chicago etc gun laws, police and other scum still do bad stuff with guns. Outlaws like Israel have nukes. You can pretend that laws will stop Joe Sixpack & The Knights Templar from having neighborhood nukes to protect themselves from the ghey Argentinian Pope & The Archdiocese of New York, but they'll do what they believe is best for liberty & security, regardless. People are going to do whatever it takes to ensure "the security of a free state". It's human nature for people are going to protect themselves and their families, from authoritarian goons whether government or private.
No, but they make it legal to stop things from happening. The government can, and does, stop people from acquiring NBC weapons, bombs, grenades, Stinger missiles, bomb components and unlicensed machine guns. The government does not stop people from going to church, joining a political party, complaining about corruption. See the difference? Where things are legal, the government doesn't try to interdict. Where things are illegal, the government intervenes quite aggressively to enforce the law. To me, the only open question on that list is machine guns. Everything else on that list is too dangerous for crackpot individuals to have, and of course the government can intervene to prevent people from getting them. The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact. For me, machine guns are the question, the thing on the frontier. Long ago the government decided to regulate them to a small, traceable and traced number. That makes sense to me. I don't want to see the prohibition of semi-automatic weapons, I like concealed carry and open carry, and I want easy licensing to do so (concealed carry). I want uniform, lax national standards, so that people don't face arrest crossing state borders: the 2nd Amendment is a national right, it should be consistent across all states. In my opinion, machine guns are on the cusp of WMD, and should be severely restricted and regulated (as they are). Regulating them as we have for the last century seems sufficient to me: we have not had anybody cut loose with an M-16 in a shopping mall, so I don't see a need to make the law of machine guns any stricter. Don't see a need to make them any laxer either, though. I about the best sort of ally that the gun nuts are ever going to get. A pretty liberal guy on matters of poverty relief, who is tolerant of things that conservatives consider immoral, who doesn't like excessive taxation, who likes the military but who is much more suspicious of the paramilitary. Who will vote for Republicans, and who agrees that the Second Amendment protects a private right to own GUNS, right up through semi-automatic weapons (even if they look SCARY, like "assault rifles" that are, in fact, just semi-automatic rifled gussied up by Mattel to LOOK LIKE bad-ass commando machine guns (and sold to men who are compensating for something). Compensate away, I'll defend your guns rights... IF you will meet me on the plane of sanity and agree that we're talking about GUNS. Just GUNS. Not anti-air missiles, not WMD, not germs, chemicals, bombs, nukes, land mines. We can debate machine guns - that's the line where the debate should be. Nobody in his right mind can seriously think we can let people have Sarin gas and anthrax grenades, or dirty-bomb grade uranium. The Second Amendment must not be interpreted to mean that.
Let me be sure I understand you. You think that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that people have the right to possess their own personal nukes. Do you really think that?
If you take the words of the Constitution literally then yes. No, the Constitution does not say that, even if read literally. Saying the right may not be infringed does not define the right protected from infringement. For all their prior lives before independence from England, the colonists enjoyed the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) which existed under the English common law. The Founders and Framers knew the meaning of "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" all of their lives. The Constitution was crafted with the language of the English common law. The prevailing interpretation of the Constitution is what the words meant to the common people at the time. It is not the drafters but the ratifiers who turned the words on a page into the law of the land. The appearance of the common law legal term, "Right to Keep and Bear Arms," could only convey the same meaning as that term conveyed under English common law, unless stated otherwise. The Framers saw no need to distinguish "Right to Keep and Bear Arms," in the Constitution, from "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" in the common law. They simply used a term everybody knew and understood. The common law right did not protect the unrestricted possession of all weapons of war. The right itself may not be infringed, but the right itself never conveyed some right to possess anything other than weapons that were lawful to possess, under due restrictions. Machineguns and atom bombs are not generally lawful to possess, and are not protected by the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. As such weapons are not encompassed by the 2nd Amendment right, infringing upon one's ability to possess such weapons does not violate the 2nd Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Israel is a nation filled with people of above average intelligence. That differs greatly from a group of slobbering libertarians muttering about muh nukes. People are going to do whatever it takes to ensure "the security of a free state". The great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump is tearing down the house that Obama built. He is making America safe again. November 6 is coming. More U.S. Supreme Court Justices like the eminent jurist, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will get appointed by the great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump.
I agree with this interpretation.
Nobody with any imagination that doesn't get wood at the thought of following orders,anyway. Sound like anyone you know?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. If you are going to keep quoting that brain fart known as Heller,why not go ahead and quote Santa and the Easter Bunny,too?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Once again,you are quoting left-wing commie judges,NOT the 2nd Amendment. You just LOVE following orders,don't you?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
BullBush! Granted,suitcase nukes CAN be carried by one man. I even knew a few people in the army that were trained and designated to jump into Easter Europe carrying suitcase nukes if the Russians ever invaded,but since it is impossible for private individuals to create one and the government isn't going to sell them,where would they come from? In addition,there is that part about "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier". Common soldiers don't carry suitcase nukes,or bio or chemical weapons around.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
"A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier" part really is "in addition". When was it added?
Just so that we're clear, you do not consider Supreme Court decisions to be law?
Yeah,deys jist too much of that "liberty nonsense" going around,huh? What people REALLY need is a firm dictator that can be a strict father figure,right?
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
No. Nor does it forbid it. Irrelevant because none are individual weapons carried by the typical soldier.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
It was a major part of the discussion that lead to the adoption of the Second Amendment.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Once again you are putting your ignorance of the law on display.
Not when they violate the original intent of the US Constitution.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Comments (90 - 148) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThat's because you don't know WTF you are talking about. are THE very weapons the Second Amendment was written to protect.
#50. To: sneakypete (#48)
#51. To: Vicomte13, wanabe tyrants, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#49)
Yep, 100 years before they were invented, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Mmmmhmmm. Seems legit.
#52. To: hondo68 (#51)
arms parity with the miltiary
#53. To: Vicomte13, amateurs (#52)
So, the Second Amendment guarantees your right to possess your own personal nuke?
Texas Nuclear Weapons Facility Pantex Activates Emergency Response Team Because of 'Unexpected Event'
#54. To: hondo68 (#53)
I've have a zero 'Unexpected Event' record.
#55. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#45)
[Vicomte13 #36] Machine guns have been illegal since the 1920s.
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#54)
do you claim that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to your own personal nuke?
#57. To: hondo68, Vicomte13 (#56)
it's a God given natural right.
#58. To: nolu chan (#57)
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
Yep, 100 years before they were invented, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Mmmmhmmm. Seems legit.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
Ok, let's play then. Machine guns are protected by the Second Amendment, you say.
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#54)
That's swell. But do you claim that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to your own personal nuke?
#62. To: nolu chan (#55)
The Second Amendment protects those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Your position that a ban of machineguns would be unconstitutional is explicitly overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008).
#63. To: nolu chan (#57)
The U.S. Constitution does not protect those rights.
#64. To: hondo68 (#56)
do you claim that the Second Amendment guarantees your right to your own personal nuke?
#65. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#63)
The fact that corrupt judges use their political biases to break the laws themselves is irrelevant.
#66. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#64)
the 2nd Amendment only refers and applies to weapons "typical of those carried by the common soldier."
Held:
#67. To: sneakypete (#62)
Machine guns were first issued to US troops in the 1800's,and this just goes to show you how freaking ignorant of reality the DC court was and is.
#68. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#62)
Heller is not only wrong,it is un-Constitutional. It was a anti-gun brain fart ran though a cherry-picked anti-gun district court in Washington,DC.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
#69. To: hondo68 (#56)
#70. To: sneakypete (#60)
#71. To: sneakypete (#61)
#72. To: Vicomte13 (#71)
Can you not simply answer the question? Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc.
#73. To: Vicomte13, Neighborhood Nuclear Superiorty NOW, Joe Sixpacks Knights Templar (#69)
If the Constitution says that George Soros and Goldman Sachs and the Archdiocese of New York, being rich, get to have their own nukes, then we're changing the Constitution pronto.
#74. To: hondo68 (#73)
You must realize that laws don't prevent things from happening.
#75. To: A K A Stone (#72)
If you take the words of the Constitution literally then yes. The constitution's words should be taken literally.
#76. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#72)
Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc.
#77. To: hondo68 (#73)
Outlaws like Israel have nukes.
Outlaws like Israel have nukes. You can pretend that laws will stop Joe Sixpack & The Knights Templar from having neighborhood nukes to protect themselves from the ghey Argentinian Pope & The Archdiocese of New York, but they'll do what they believe is best for liberty & security, regardless.
#78. To: nolu chan (#76)
#79. To: nolu chan (#65)
Nobody gives a crap what some cranky old asshat blogger has to say.
#80. To: nolu chan (#66)
Heller, 554 U.S. 570, Syllabus
#81. To: nolu chan (#67)
Reading the laws would show you just how ignorant of the law you are. When machineguns were first issued to U.S. troops is irrelevant. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
#82. To: Vicomte13 (#70)
(Edited)
Suitcase nukes can be individual weapons. So can small chemical and biological weapons. And stinger missiles.
#83. To: sneakypete (#82)
In addition,there is that part about "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier".
#84. To: sneakypete (#81)
Once again,you are quoting left-wing commie judges,NOT the 2nd Amendment.
#85. To: nolu chan (#68)
It is just typical libertarian nonsense.
#86. To: Vicomte13 (#71)
Does the Second Amendment protect the right of individuals to possess nukes, biological weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, etc.
#87. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
That "weapons typical of those carried by the common soldier" part really is "in addition". When was it added?
#88. To: sneakypete (#81)
Once again,you are quoting left-wing commie judges,NOT the 2nd Amendment.
#89. To: Vicomte13 (#84)
Just so that we're clear, you do not consider Supreme Court decisions to be law?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]