SCOTUS to rule on 2nd Amendment

[History_Buff]

Using the same logic, the 1st amendment wouldn't apply to scientologists.

Obviously reasonable regulation is good. However, the machine gun ban makes no sense. One can own a machine gun, with the proper federal tax stamp ($200 and a background check), but it has to be manufactured before 1986. Therefore, it makes machine guns prohibitively expensive for those you might want one. To obtain the federal tax stamp, a person is fingerprinted, checked thoroughly, and required to inform the ATF if the firearm is transported across state lines or if the registered owner moves. Theft is the only concern, and I don't know anybody who owns a machine gun and doesn't have it locked up in a vault.

Well, the 1st Amendment states pretty simply that no government will act to impede any religion or belief, and while I hesistate to call scientology a religion (for biased reasons I admit), I don't think belief is too much of a stretch. The 2nd however has the whole preamble about militia, which makes it pretty clear in my head as to why the 2nd Amendment was put in place, namely to help the government put down rebellion (ironically enough).

As for machine guns, I agree with that whole 'before 1986' to be rediculous. I just can't possibly understand why anyone would need, or want, to own a machine gun. Thereby making it prohibitively expensive seems like a very good idea.

And for the record, I assume the term machine gun applies to military grade semi-automatics, not specifically machine guns like the M2?

If you consider the 2nd Amendment as a backup for national defense then why prohibit things like machineguns and cannons?

Yeah, yeah, I know it was kind of rediculous. I had serious reservations when I was posting it, not really sure why I did in the end.

 

[IglooDame]

It says they may bear arms. Nowhere does it says they can own whatever arms they want. I don't think the founders saw this as the unbridled right of farmers to own and fire cannons whenever they wanted.

Look up "letters of marque" - individual citizens did own cannon in the 18th and early 19th centuries, so it's pretty easy to think that the founders included them in their thinking.

But honestly, the 2nd Amendment was designed to create a population willing to fight various threats to the United States, domestic or international.

(bolding mine)

Not willing, able.

With that in mind, I don't see how anyone could favor the 2nd Amendment and not some form of conscription.

Fortunately, we have both.

 

[Zarn]

Well, the 1st Amendment states pretty simply that no government will act to impede any religion or belief, and while I hesistate to call scientology a religion (for biased reasons I admit), I don't think belief is too much of a stretch.

What do you know about Scientology?

What religion copyright's its symbol and forces people to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to become full members?

 

[JollyRoger]

What do you know about Scientology?

What religion copyright's its symbol and forces people to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to become full members?

Just a different sort of fund raising than the selling of indugences to rebuild a Basilica.

 

[Zarn]

Just a different sort of fund raising than the selling of indugences to rebuild a Basilica.

Indulgences don't make you a full Catholic. If you are Catholic, then you are Catholic. End of story.

 

[BasketCase]

Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual´s right to bear arms?

The answer is no.

The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms.

It merely says the government shall not infringe on it.

Because the right to keep and bear arms existed before the Constitution did.

 

[Cutlass]

The answer is no.

The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms.

It merely says the government shall not infringe on it.

Because the right to keep and bear arms existed before the Constitution did.

No it didn't. No right has ever existed until government says it has.

 

[Tycoon101]

No it didn't. No right has ever existed until government says it has.

Rights are inherent with our being human. Humans came before governments, therefore rights existed before the government.

Learn what they are before you mock them. A right is not a right if the government must allow you to have it - that is a privilege.

 

[Cutlass]

That makes no sense. Until a government is going to protect your right to do something, you can't do it. Or if you try to do it, someone stronger can come along and force you to stop. There is no freedom except collective freedom. And the way collective freedom is expressed is in laws.

 

[Tycoon101]

That makes no sense. Until a government is going to protect your right to do something, you can't do it.

So I couldn't say "I drive trucks and eat steaks made of trucks, and you can go to Hell if you think I am weird!" without the government?

Or if you try to do it, someone stronger can come along and force you to stop.

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.

Care to rethink that?

There is no freedom except collective freedom. And the way collective freedom is expressed is in laws.

What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

How the Hell did you get on here, Rudy?

 

[Bugfatty300]

I just can't possibly understand why anyone would need, or want, to own a machine gun.

You don't see a reason to own something so you think it should be prohibited?

Lots of people own machineguns in the US for a variety of reasons. They are fun to shoot, fun to collect and no more dangerous than any other firearm.

And for the record, I assume the term machine gun applies to military grade semi-automatics, not specifically machine guns like the M2?

You assume wrong. A semi-auto is not a machinegun according to just about everyone's definition. A semi-auto is a semi-auto.

 

[Ecofarm]

A semi-auto is not a machinegun according to just about everyone's definition. A semi-auto is a semi-auto.

A semi-auto (with clips that can hold certain number of rounds? ) is an...

assault rifle



I wonder if it is against the law to make a drum-sized magazine (50-100 rounds) for any weapon. Not all hunters are good shots.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

I wonder if it is against the law to make a drum-sized magazine (50-100 rounds) for any weapon. Not all hunters are good shots.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to make jungle clips.

 

[Elrohir]

The answer is no.

The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms.

It merely says the government shall not infringe on it.

Because the right to keep and bear arms existed before the Constitution did.

The Constitution guarantees that right, by creating a government that has a duty to protect that right. You are correct, though, in stating that the right preexisted the Constitution, and that the government did not create or grant it.

That makes no sense. Until a government is going to protect your right to do something, you can't do it. Or if you try to do it, someone stronger can come along and force you to stop. There is no freedom except collective freedom. And the way collective freedom is expressed is in laws.

See, here's the problem. Totally different viewpoint over here.

The government exists to protect and defend natural human rights. It never can create rights, nor should it ever seek to do so. It's duty is to protect the rights that you rightfully have - and if it doesn't do that, then it's an illegitimate, worse than useless government, and should be done away with.

That is the principle this country was founded upon. Not upon the government granting its people petty privileges - but upon the idea that the People control the government, and the government exists to serve them. The government exists solely to protect the rights of the People from those who would take them away.

Maybe it's just me (Though I doubt it) but I think that nonsense on stilts still has a ways to go yet.

 

[History_Buff]

You don't see a reason to own something so you think it should be prohibited?

Lots of people own machineguns in the US for a variety of reasons. They are fun to shoot, fun to collect and no more dangerous than any other firearm.

Ok, they could be considered 'fun'. So can many drugs. That's not a reason to legalize them. Point is an automatic weapon is very dangerous, moreso than a non-automatic (whatever, exactly that is deemed to be).

My train of logic goes like this:

1) Machine guns are dangerous
2) No real need for people to own machine guns exists
3) Therefore, people should not have them
4) Therefore, make them illegal

 

[Ecofarm]

Ok, they could be considered 'fun'. So can many drugs. That's not a reason to legalize them. Point is an automatic weapon is very dangerous, moreso than a non-automatic (whatever, exactly that is deemed to be).

My train of logic goes like this:

1) Machine guns are dangerous
2) No real need for people to own machine guns exists
3) Therefore, people should not have them
4) Therefore, make them illegal

Even though I think you are joking, I'll play along.

1) so. cars are way more dangerous. so is water
2) there is no real need for most of what you have
3) ?
4) Profit

(non-automatic means that the bolt moves forward once [firing a single round] when you pull the trigger)

To be fair, with a machinegun one could kill 100 people in ~10 seconds. You can't really do that with a couple semi-autos; however, it is child's-play to shave a bolt causing uncontrolled (short of removing magazine) autofire on 1 trigger pull. And then there are bombs... So... A machinegun isn't much of an additional risk. Carrying one and a decent amount of ammo very far would be pretty absurd. In urban warfare/assault on innocents I think mobility precludes the use of such a thing unless it is a squad served weapon. It's best (and alone, only possible) as a defensive weapon, so why not legalize it?

 

[Shylock]

2) No real need for people to own machine guns exists

Does that include the police? Because they do have them. At least depending on what your definition of machine gun is.

1) Machine guns are dangerous
2) No real need for people to own machine guns exists
3) Therefore, people should not have them
4) Therefore, make them illegal

1.)Sharp corners are dangerous
2.)No real need for people to have sharp corners in their house exists.
3.) Therefore, people should not have them.
4.) Ban sharp corners.

Just because you think there is no "real need" for something doesn't mean you outlaw it. People don't need a lot of things.

 

[Bill3000]

2) No real need for people to own machine guns exists

They want them.

That's all that is necessary.

 

[Ansar]

They want them.

That's all that is necessary.

FREE MARKET!

 

[bhsup]

They want them.

That's all that is necessary.

Glad to see someone gets it.