Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-16-2013, 11:54 AM
 
315 posts, read 257,444 times
Reputation: 135

Advertisements

The Assault Weapons Ban as Understood by a 2nd Amendment Scholar | PBS NewsHour

She says government study shows semi auto weapons not used in crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2013, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,458 posts, read 59,955,629 times
Reputation: 24865
When they wrote the 2nd amendment it was assumed that all freemen would already have the guns they were supposed to bring whenever the local Militia was mustered for training or war. The writers assumed it was not necessary to specify that "to keep and bear arms" was an individual preexisting right because, like free speech, it already was.

Very few "Assault Weapons" are used by criminals because it is nearly imposible to conceal a short rifle with a 30 round magazine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 01:09 PM
 
Location: MS
4,332 posts, read 4,929,349 times
Reputation: 1564
Publius Huldah does a much better job.

GUN CONTROL in TN? Kelsey, Overbey, Stevens, Finney Vote NO Gun Freedom for Tennessee. - YouTube
All Federal Gun Laws Are Unconstitutional - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 01:47 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,812,668 times
Reputation: 4174
The scholar is half right.

If the 2nd was supposed to protect only guns "in common usage", all the govt would have to do is pass a law putting very heavy restrictions, taxes etc. on some particular gun or class of guns. Then, years later, when those restrictions have crushed the gun or guns out of civilian hands, the govt can say, "Look, that gun isn't in common usage (any more), so it's not covered by the 2nd amendment and we can ban it."

The govt LOVES to hear people say that the 2nd covers guns that are only in comon usage. Gives them carte blanche to ban anyting they want, given a little patience.

BTW, since this scholar is so scholarly, did she name the actual part of the 2nd amendment that excludes any guns NOT "in common usage"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 01:55 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,828 posts, read 15,243,617 times
Reputation: 5240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
The scholar is half right.

If the 2nd was supposed to protect only guns "in common usage", all the govt would have to do is pass a law putting very heavy restrictions, taxes etc. on some particular gun or class of guns. Then, years later, when those restrictions have crushed the gun or guns out of civilian hands, the govt can say, "Look, that gun isn't in common usage (any more), so it's not covered by the 2nd amendment and we can ban it."

The govt LOVES to hear people say that the 2nd covers guns that are only in comon usage. Gives them carte blanche to ban anyting they want, given a little patience.

BTW, since this scholar is so scholarly, did she name the actual part of the 2nd amendment that excludes any guns NOT "in common usage"?

kind of hard to do those proposals when most firearms owners own at least a few misnamed military lookalike assault rifles.

how will the feds ban something that most people own? go from house to house and confiscate them? do that once or twice and shooting will start when they go to the next home looking to confiscate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 01:58 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,812,668 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
kind of hard to do those proposals when most firearms owners own at least a few misnamed military lookalike assault rifles.
What's hard about it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 02:06 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,828 posts, read 15,243,617 times
Reputation: 5240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
What's hard about it?

good luck trying to ban something that is owned by millions of people. better luck in trying to confiscate them without getting shot in the process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 02:24 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,812,668 times
Reputation: 4174
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
good luck trying to ban something that is owned by millions of people. better luck in trying to confiscate them without getting shot in the process.
First you gradually enact changes so that, eventually, it's not owned by so many people. Then after a long while, you finally ban it.

"Problem" solved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,906,736 times
Reputation: 4585
Does anybody have a link to Jefferson quote "Beauty of 2nd amendment ..." all I can find is this ...

The beauty of the Second Amendment... (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2013, 03:02 PM
 
Location: MS
4,332 posts, read 4,929,349 times
Reputation: 1564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
The scholar is half right.

If the 2nd was supposed to protect only guns "in common usage", all the govt would have to do is pass a law putting very heavy restrictions, taxes etc. on some particular gun or class of guns. Then, years later, when those restrictions have crushed the gun or guns out of civilian hands, the govt can say, "Look, that gun isn't in common usage (any more), so it's not covered by the 2nd amendment and we can ban it."

The govt LOVES to hear people say that the 2nd covers guns that are only in comon usage. Gives them carte blanche to ban anyting they want, given a little patience.

BTW, since this scholar is so scholarly, did she name the actual part of the 2nd amendment that excludes any guns NOT "in common usage"?
What about new designs? Until January 1982 there wasn't a commercially available, shoulder fired .50 BMG. Ronnie Barrett built the first. Now there are dozens of companies making them.

Until the late 1950's, the AR-10did not exist. Eugene Stoner made the first in 1955. From the larger AR-10 design, the AR-15 was born a few years later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top