ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[Humerox]

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

Everything can be answered by one very simple word. Permits.

Doesn't answer my question. And what you just said supports anti-assault weaponry theorem, sir.

Someone who isd pro-gun answer my question. please.

[Halfelfbard]

i am pro gun all the way man, i even own a few...but an assault weapon i will never need, i am not in the armed forces, or a police officer.

And unless there is a war coming to Wisconsin, not like im gonna hunt with a, LOL assault weapon.

[Humerox]

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

i am pro gun all the way man, i even own a few...but an assault weapon i will never need, i am not in the armed forces, or a police officer.

And unless there is a war coming to Wisconsin, not like im gonna hunt with a, LOL assault weapon.

I'm with ya, bro. I'm pro-gun and anti assault-style weapons meself.

I need one of these extreme right-wingers to explain this to me.

What arms can you bear according to the Constitution?

[qety20]

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

I'm with ya, bro. I'm pro-gun and anti assault-style weapons meself.

I need one of these extreme right-wingers to explain this to me.

What arms can you bear according to the Constitution?

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". I work for a company that manufactures machine guns. ( mostly for movies and rich dudes who want something to take to a private range to blow shit up with.) I do not have the money to and probably never will but the company owner has real "assault weapons". Full auto weapons,rpg's,flashbangs,grenades,belt fed machine guns. and had an up armored vehicle ( economy sucks man gotta sell some shit). He did all the paperwork right with ATF and it is totally legal. He doesn't think that the government is coming tomorrow to take his food and water. He just has them because he can. Now the flipside to this is. If america did turn into a tyrannical government. Like they were coming for everything you own its ours now type. It wouldn't work. at least not in the hands of soldiers. Because the individual I spoke of and myself are both current service members. and everyone I know in the military feels the same way. If we receive the order to do horrible things to Americans. with no justification. We will take all of our government funded equipment. and head east. and that would be the end of it. So to answer your question as to what are "arms". A piece of equipment that a individual could use to be on a equal fighting field with any foreign or domestic government. ( I know your all going to dub me as a crazy man but please understand I am actually the guy who is trying to be level headed here. )

[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 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.

[Harmonium]

As the Oregon Supreme Court recently opined, in the state constitutions adopted between 1776 and 1802 "the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense." Under the second amendment, all commonly possessed arms which an individual could "keep and bear" would be constitutionally protected. Both then and now, these arms include firearms, edged weapons, and blunt instruments.

The most clearly protected firearm is the rifle, the use of which for self-defense even in urban areas is protected by the second amendment "guarantee of the right of the individual to bear arms."

The modern descendent of the musket, the rifle is the classic militia firearm. The shotgun is also protected by the second amendment. The short-barreled shotgun is the descendent of the blunderbuss, a classic home defense arm, in contrast with the long-barreled hunting shotgun known traditionally as the fowling piece. While it may not be within judicial notice that the short-barreled shotgun is a militia arm protected by the second amendment, such an arm has been factually determined to fall within a state constitution protecting the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms for their common defense."

The arm most commonly possessed for self-defense is the pistol, due to its ease of storage, carriage, and accessibility. "'Pistol' ex vi termini is properly included within the word 'arms,' and ... the right to bear such arms ... cannot be infringed." Its short barrel makes it difficult for an assailant to grab, and its size, weight, and simple mechanism makes its use viable for women, the elderly, and the handicapped. Smaller pistols have particular utility for smaller people. The smallest handgun designed by Smith & Wesson "was such a small revolver that it was nicknamed the Ladysmith, since it seemed to be more suitable for a woman's small hand." The relatively high cost of rifles as compared to pistols suggests that a ban on ownership or possession of low-caliber handguns would effectively negate any right of the poor to bear firearms for their self-defense.

There has been little scholarship concerning whether certain edged weapons and blunt instruments are "arms" in a constitutional sense. The knife is one of mankind's oldest tools and weapons. Pocketknives were in use when the second amendment was adopted. It is questionable whether "switchblade" knives with the modern convenience of a spring-assisted blade may be banned any more than could modern firearms which no longer rely on a flintlock mechanism. The staff and the club, mankind's oldest defensive weapons, are clearly constitutionally protected.

Since "arms" under the second amendment are those which an individual is capable of bearing, artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices, and other heavy ordnances are not constitutionally protected. Nor are other dangerous and unusual weapons, such as grenades, bombs, bazookas, and other devices which, while capable of being carried by hand, have never been commonly possessed for self-defense. Blunt and edged instruments and firearms are capable of being used against a violent assailant in such a manner as not to endanger the innocent. In contrast, explosive devices may be incapable of pinpointing an aggressor, thus harming the innocent as well as the guilty.

this is why grenades, and explosives in general (like your assertion that was should have nukes) aren't authorized for civilians to bear.

[Humerox]

[QUOTE=Harmonium;818969probably was intended[/QUOTE]

Probably was intended doesn't answer the question. What arms does the constitution say we all have the right to bear?

[Harmonium]

Lol your a fucking idiot

[Humerox]

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

Lol your a fucking idiot

Answer my fucking question, lol.