Biden saying now he will defeat the NRA

[Conan]

Stoner sold his rights for the AR 15 to be a semi automatic rifle for civilians from the get go. It was been legal to own this fine, non military civilian rifle for how long now? Since the 60's. It is not a military rifle, but a civilian one. Why ban it? Only tyrants fear it, and dictatorships. You have no right to ban it, any more than any other civilian weapons. What is the difference between banning an AR or your shot guns? None whatsoever. Those who want to ban guns try to fool people who dont know anything about them to demonize them, to scare the public. They are never used in crimes (Vegas being a huge exception) . There is absolutely no reason to ban the fine, light weight highly accurate weapon that was born, and always has been a civilian weapon.

 

[JonC]

The argument will hinge on what it means to infringe a right and specifically that right. Also, the security of a free state, which should be clearer, and then that the right is directly to the people, not to the state. Then there is the issue of a well regulated militia.

We might question if the states are still free. If not, it could be semantically argued that the right vanishes entirely. Of course, that would be utter nonsense, but is just the sort of argument often proffered.

IMHO States have sold their freedom to the Federal government. And a State can no longer take Arms against the Federal government and remain on constitutional grounds, so perhaps the right does vanish.

 

[JonC]

Stoner sold his rights for the AR 15 to be a semi automatic rifle for civilians from the get go. It was been legal to own this fine, non military civilian rifle for how long now? Since the 60's. It is not a military rifle, but a civilian one. Why ban it? Only tyrants fear it, and dictatorships. You have no right to ban it, any more than any other civilian weapons. What is the difference between banning an AR or your shot guns? None whatsoever. Those who want to ban guns try to fool people who dont know anything about them to demonize them, to scare the public. They are never used in crimes (Vegas being a huge exception) . There is absolutely no reason to ban the fine, light weight highly accurate weapon that was born, and always has been a civilian weapon.

Why not ban it?

 

[Yeshua1]

Why not ban it?

Maybe have to ban the Constitution first?

 

[Rob_BW]

Has anyone mentioned that Wayne Lapierre and his $5K suits have already killed the NRA?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

FYI, the AR of AR15 does not stand for assault rifle. It stands for ARmalite, the manufacture.

Stoner sold his rights for the AR 15 to be a semi automatic rifle for civilians from the get go. It was been legal to own this fine, non military civilian rifle for how long now? Since the 60's. It is not a military rifle, but a civilian one. Why ban it? Only tyrants fear it, and dictatorships. You have no right to ban it, any more than any other civilian weapons. What is the difference between banning an AR or your shot guns? None whatsoever. Those who want to ban guns try to fool people who dont know anything about them to demonize them, to scare the public. They are never used in crimes (Vegas being a huge exception) . There is absolutely no reason to ban the fine, light weight highly accurate weapon that was born, and always has been a civilian weapon.

 

[JonC]

Maybe have to ban the Constitution first?

No. We wouldn't. Arms does not mean any type of Arms.

I would interpret the term "Arms" to indicate an effectiveness in securing the State (which would be more powerful weapons than most would want to allow).

@RighteousnessTemperance& makes a good observation about the purpose in regards to free States. The idea of State freedom no longer applies as we are not a Union of individual free States any more. So the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is questionable.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

IMHO States have sold their freedom to the Federal government. And a State can no longer take Arms against the Federal government and remain on constitutional grounds, so perhaps the right does vanish.

No. We wouldn't. Arms does not mean any type of Arms.

I would interpret the term "Arms" to indicate an effectiveness in securing the State (which would be more powerful weapons than most would want to allow).

@RighteousnessTemperance& makes a good observation about the purpose in regards to free States. The idea of State freedom no longer applies as we are not a Union of individual free States any more. So the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is questionable.

OK, I'll bite. What constitutional laws established that the USA is not a union of free states?

 

[church mouse guy]

No. We wouldn't. Arms does not mean any type of Arms.

I would interpret the term "Arms" to indicate an effectiveness in securing the State (which would be more powerful weapons than most would want to allow).

@RighteousnessTemperance& makes a good observation about the purpose in regards to free States. The idea of State freedom no longer applies as we are not a Union of individual free States any more. So the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is questionable.

Questionable? Komrade Moderator, have you been drinking beet juice behind the tractor barn and longing for the glorious days of Komrade Stalin when only Beria’s boys had both guns and bullets? Ay, Chihuahua!

 

[Salty]

States' Rights & The Civil War

 

[church mouse guy]

FYI, the AR of AR15 does not stand for assault rifle. It stands for ARmalite, the manufacture.

Some say the AR15 is not that powerful.

 

[Salty]

AR-15 vs. M16: What's the Difference?

 

[Alcott]

Arms does not mean any type of Arms.

All I see in there is "arms." No description, exceptions, or exclusions.

I would interpret the term "Arms" to indicate an effectiveness in securing the State (which would be more powerful weapons than most would want to allow).

You're the arbiter on the meaning of constitutional rights, are you?

makes a good observation about the purpose in regards to free States. The idea of State freedom no longer applies as we are not a Union of individual free States any more. So the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is questionable.

The only point is that it is there and cannot be ignored.

 

[church mouse guy]

AR-15 vs. M16: What's the Difference?

AR15 shoots 223, a hunting cartridge. I am not sure how much more powerful the 556 is.

 

[JonC]

OK, I'll bite. What constitutional laws established that the USA is not a union of free states?

It is not in the Constitution (some would say it is implied in the Preamble based on the Articles of Confederation) and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court that States are not free in terms of withdrawal from the Union).

Then we have the practicality that States have sold their freedom to the Federal government by becoming dependent on federal funding.

 

[Scott Downey]

AR15 shoots 223, a hunting cartridge. I am not sure how much more powerful the 556 is.

You know I have never shot a gun, but dont mind if others own and use them. I have held several pistols, some loaded. they are quite well machined. I am very mechanical and have rebuilt boat engines, cars and several automatic transmissions. I have wondered about buying a gun for home protection. So far our area has had no problems.

 

[JonC]

You're the arbiter on the meaning of constitutional rights, are you?

Are you? Or are we discussing what each of us believe concerning the issue?

I am not the arbiter on the meaning of constitutional. Courts are. And courts have determined that banning specific weapons from the public does not violate the 2nd Amendment. You already have many of these decisions determined by the Supreme Court and federal law.

 

[JonC]

Questionable? Komrade Moderator, have you been drinking beet juice behind the tractor barn and longing for the glorious days of Komrade Stalin when only Beria’s boys had both guns and bullets? Ay, Chihuahua!

What does the 2nd Amendment say is the purpose of bearing Arms?

 

[Scott Downey]

What does the 2nd Amendment say is the purpose of bearing Arms?

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression,

and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] Any labels of rights as auxiliary must be viewed in the context of the inherent purpose of a Bill of Rights, which is to empower a group with the ability to achieve a mutually desired outcome, and not to necessarily enumerate or rank the importance of rights. Thus all rights enumerated in a Constitution are thus auxiliary in the eyes of Sir William Blackstone because all rights are only as good as the extent they are exercised in fact. While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison.

In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[13][14]

 

[JonC]

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression,

and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] Any labels of rights as auxiliary must be viewed in the context of the inherent purpose of a Bill of Rights, which is to empower a group with the ability to achieve a mutually desired outcome, and not to necessarily enumerate or rank the importance of rights. Thus all rights enumerated in a Constitution are thus auxiliary in the eyes of Sir William Blackstone because all rights are only as good as the extent they are exercised in fact. While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison.

In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[13][14]

The purpose was to maintain the security of the State (I believe to prevent a federal government from becoming a "king").

" 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" does not prohibit the government from excluding types of weapons to the general public.

But often it is taken as an individual right that can be used against the State. It has already been mentioned that citizens need to be armed to prevent police from doing their will. The reason we have the right to bear Arms is because a "a well regulated Militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State".