Asssault weapons

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2004
Asssault weapons
56
Thu, 09-09-2004 - 9:11pm
How do you feel about the Assault weapons ban being lifted? Do you think that our police are in danger?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 3:03pm
How so? The previously banned firearms themselves are no different than non-banned models which look just like them, and the laws dealing with the process for purchase of ANY firearm haven't expired. So nothing of significance has changed.

Why do you think it has? Or are you just accepting whatever the media tells you without question?

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 3:18pm
Hey, when the subject is broached I usually participate. It's not like I brought it up.

>>>"Yes, the Constitution does guarantee the right to bear arms so that there can be proper defense of our nation should it be necessary. However, the intent of that amendment was so that individuals who were called to serve would provide their own weapons."<<<

Indeed, though it is important to note that the RKBA isn't reserved to militia service. That's merely one purpose, not the *only* purpose for our right to keep and bear arms.

>>>"Therefore, if you wish to own a gun, you should be willing and ABLE to serve in the defense of our nation."<<<

Not required, since the RKBA is guaranteed to "the people", not to "the militia". The arms of the people are available for use by the militia when called forth, but the right itself belongs to "the people". Being willing and able (as in able-bodied, an original requirement for militia service) to serve is a requisite for *militia service*, not for the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms.

>>>"In other words, if you ain't in the military, you're not on reserve, nor are you a police officer of some sort (and I'll even include the volunteer mounted posses that they have in some regions), then your right to bear arms is, well, non-existent."<<<

Incorrect, though that is a popular (mis)interpretation, especially among the gun control crowd. In any event it's easily disproved. Look at the 2nd Amendment.

What is the only right enumerated there? The right to keep and bear arms.

To whom is that right reserved? To the people.

So where is the qualifier that only militia members have a right to keep and bear arms? You'll have a great time looking, though a fruitless one, because it isn't there in any form, shape, or fashion.

The right is not reserved to the militia, and is therefore cannnot logically be considered the exclusive domain of the militia. The 2nd was deliberately written in that manner specifically to try and avoid the sort of sophistry illustrated in your interpretation. The people, the citizens of this country enjoy the RKBA, though only a certain sub-category of that citizenry is considered to be the militia.

Your argument further falls short on that precise point, since being considered to be in the militia does NOT require either active or reserve military service, nor law enforcement duties. So far as US Code is concerned all that's contemporarily required is that you fall within a certain age range and not already be a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia...

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Like I said, I'm fully aware that yours is a very popular interpretation of the 2nd among some groups, but it fails on several levels when it tries to address the 2nd and US Code.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 3:21pm
That would be Class III (rather than 5), for NFA firearms. Oops. nt
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 9:11pm
Thanks for the correction. I knew it was a Class something.....my friend who took me to the range to shoot his AR-15 said that it was fairly easy to get one too, depending on which state you live in of course..
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2004
Mon, 09-13-2004 - 10:05pm

Mark--


When the Constitution was written, I doubt very seriously those men were even thinking about the fact that one day just about anyone could own a semi-automatic weapon. Surely Messrs. Jefferson and Adams would be appalled at the idea that weapons whose sole purpose in being is to kill other humans quickly and efficiently could be shot off by private citizens as part of a leisurely weekend activity.


While the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that you use is the most commonly used one today, it doesn't mean that it's the right

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Tue, 09-14-2004 - 9:13am
The Founders had seen even in their time significant advances in firearms technology, so it's questionable to believe that they thought they had seen the pinnacle of firearms development. They knew it would continue to evolve, as it was evolving even then. And to allow for such advancement while still protecting the right to keep and bear newly developed firearms, they elected to not specify any particular type of firearm or arm in the 2nd.

"Surely Messrs. Jefferson and Adams would be appalled at the idea that weapons whose sole purpose in being is to kill other humans quickly and efficiently could be shot off by private citizens as part of a leisurely weekend activity."

Logical fallacy, as that is not the sole purpose of any firearm. The purpose of a firearm is to direct a projectile down a barrel toward a target of the shooters choosing. Beyond that the choice of purpose is entirely in the hands of those wielding it. For target shooters, the purpose is to punch holes in paper. For hunters, it's to take game animals quickly and efficiently.

"While the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that you use is the most commonly used one today, it doesn't mean that it's the right one."

Nor does it mean it's the wrong one. It is, however, the one supported by the history of the amendment as well as that of the militia.

"Up at least through the Civil War (and since I don't know military history all that well, please forgive me if I flub this a bit), all able bodied young men were called to service when they were needed (though many rich men did buy their ways out of service.)"

Okay so far.

"So, the militia portion of the 2nd Amendment was truely the intent, if not the exact wording, of the RKBA."

Wrong. The 2nd embraced two main principles... the militia was vital to the security of a free state, and as a means of enumerating the right to keep and bear arms. If, as you argue, the militia is the true subject of the 2nd, then where is the right which is guaranteed to it? As has been pointed out, there is only ONE right specifically enumerated in the 2nd Amendment (which is found, coincidentally, in the Bill of Rights), the right to keep and bear arms, and it's NOT guaranteed to the militia. So how can you logically conclude that the militia is the subject, the point of the entire amendment?

"In a time when we are attempting to prevent future terrorist attacks within our own country, does it really make sense to make it easier to purchase weapons?"

The AWB didn't make it any harder than it is now, than it was prior to being enacted. It wasn't gun control legislation per se, but a ban on the importation or manufacture of various firearms and firearms with certain features. It did nothing to make purchasing firearms more difficult.

"Yes, the old law wasn't great, but it's sure better than nothing at all."

How so? It grandfathered existing firearms then called "assault weapons" and allowed the legal purchase of them still. It did the same with high capacity magazines. So in both cases the prohibited firearms were still readily available. The ban did nothing to prevent functionally identical firearms from being imported, manufactured, or sold.

So precisely how was that ban better than nothing at all? What of practical worth did it accomplish?

~mark~

Pages