ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by qety20 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Welp im going to sound like the crazy man here but...lets give this a shot. Considering the 2nd amendment was made for the possibility of people being able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Anything that a solider can operate or carry is "arms".

Now we're getting somewhere.

I'll get back to this in a minute.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I made a very articulate post about the definition of "arms". if the word "probably" causes your brain to cease functioning, then try and figure out a way to pretend it isn't there to be able to see the clear meaning presented in the text.

No question that your post was articulate. However, the definition of "arms" didn't come from the Constitution, nor does it tell me what "arms" I can or can't have.

You said that grenades and other destructive weapons were disallowed...yet they are not. You can legally own bazookas, tanks, and all kinds of other things people assume you can't.

My point is that the Constitution does not state what "arms" you are allowed to carry although it's clear that whatever those "arms" are the right to carry them is unquestionable.

So from a Constitutional standpoint I can carry a FIM-92 Stinger, and so can you. From a Constitutional standpoint we can carry a suitcase nuclear weapon. Prove to me that the Constitution doesn't allow this, and that it doesn't guarantee the individual right to have these weapons.

[Faron]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why is it a straw-man?

Why doesn't the Constitution allow me to have whatever "arms" I want? Am I supposed to infer that legitimate legislation should define what "arms" are reasonable?

Isn't that infringement?

Show me what "arms" I'm allowed to bear under the Constitution.

Yes we get your point. . . Obviously there is a line to be drawn somewhere between firearms that are practical for the general public to own and those that are not. The debate is where. Some say that line is at walmart rifles with plastic addons that makes them look assaulty, others disagree. "Why don't you interpret laws 100% word-for-word??" isn't really an argument, it's just an attempt to look witty.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by qety20 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Welp im going to sound like the crazy man here but...lets give this a shot. Considering the 2nd amendment was made for the possibility of people being able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Anything that a solider can operate or carry is "arms".

And that's just if you have a narrow definition of "arms".

By legal and other channels, the Latin "arma ferre" entered deeply into the European language of war. Bearing arms is such a synonym for waging war that Shakespeare can call a just war " 'justborne arms" and a civil war "self-borne arms." Even outside the special phrase "bear arms," much of the noun's use echoes Latin phrases: to be under arms (sub armis), the call to arms (ad arma), to follow arms (arma sequi), to take arms (arma capere), to lay down arms (arma pœnere). "Arms" is a profession that one brother chooses the way another choose law or the church. An issue undergoes the arbitrament of arms." ... One does not bear arms against a rabbit...

But I digress. Furthermore, The National Firearms Act of 1934 is illegal, if we are to presume that any legislation against the 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Faron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Why don't you interpret laws 100% word-for-word??" isn't really an argument, it's just an attempt to look witty.

OK...so why does any attempt to legislate assault-style weapons get the Second Amendment argument?

It's not an attempt to look witty. It's a valid question and so far no one except gety20 is on the right track.

[Faron]

While we're at it, the entire existence of the FCC is violating the right of free speech. I want my local morning radio hacks to drop F bombs until lunch.

inb4 siriusxm

[qety20]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I made a very articulate post about the definition of "arms". if the word "probably" causes your brain to cease functioning, then try and figure out a way to pretend it isn't there to be able to see the clear meaning presented in the text.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You I like you..

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Faron [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Obviously there is a line to be drawn somewhere between firearms that are practical for the general public to own and those that are not. The debate is where.

Yup. That's my position.

It's not the position of the Alex Jones crowd...and it's they I want to answer my question.

What "arms" do I...or you...have the right to bear under the Constitution?

Before anybody goes foaming at the mouth about second-amendment rights they need to understand that the second amendment ESPECIALLY since Heller, does not make a provision of what those rights are. The second amendment made much more sense in that respect when applied to militias...which several people have already brought up.

The Court erred in Heller...now we have to legislate to fix it.

[patriot1776]

any firearm

[qety20]

Originally Posted by patriot1776 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

any firearm

You I like you to..