Who Called Them "Assault Weapons"?

Into the Night said:
The founders. The Constitution of the United States. The constitutions of the various States. Me. Gun owners. Gun manufacturers.
Click to expand...

In other words, nobody who really matters.
For what it's worth, I am a US citizen, an owner of nine [mostly very expensive] firearms, and I'm absolutely convinced that it's a great idea.
 
Into the Night said:
Redefinition fallacy. Conflation of context. A militia is not a requisite to be people or their right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

It is according to the 2nd. That is given as the reason for bearing arms. Once you realize that, guns are able to be restricted. They should be. The time for citizen soldiers is long gone. And language is not that precise. That is why the Supremes have to interpret the laws.
 
Nordberg said:
You do not understand the constitution. The 2nd says a well-regulated militia. That is not what guns in every home and crazy person's hands means. We had no standing army or military training after the revolution. If the Brits returned, we would use citizen soldiers. They came and burned down the Whitehouse. Now we have one of the largest standing armies in the world. We are not dependent on citizen soldiers. The gun manufacturers lied and some supreme bought it. Now America Is a shooting gallery. You believe what gun lobbyists said because you want to.
Case double closed.
Click to expand...

From my state's (PA) constitution

Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

"...shall not be questioned." Nothing more needs said.
 
Into the Night said:
A State has the same inherent right of self defense that you do.
Click to expand...

governments do not have rights, only powers. Governments exist only with the consent of the governed. as an example, if a current state administration didn't like the results of an election, they could defend themselves, as per your concept of self defense. The PEOPLE elect representatives to do the PEOPLES bidding. government is just an entity with powers prescribed to them.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
It's really quite simple.
All firearms that don't have fine walnut, hand-checkered stocks and exquisite bluing should be deemed military shit and prescribed from private ownership.
The good stuff like Weatherby rifles and Beretta over/unders should be unregulated.
Who could possibly argue against this proposal?
Click to expand...

the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting wildlife
 
NiftyNiblick said:
In other words, nobody who really matters.
For what it's worth, I am a US citizen, an owner of nine [mostly very expensive] firearms, and I'm absolutely convinced that it's a great idea.
Click to expand...

and as we've seen, alot of your ideas are pretty idiotic. now, if you're trying to say that the opinions of gun owners don't matter........................
 
Nordberg said:
It is according to the 2nd. That is given as the reason for bearing arms.
Click to expand...
no, it's not.

Nordberg said:
Once you realize that, guns are able to be restricted.
Click to expand...
what, exactly, do you believe the phrase 'shall not be infringed' means???

Nordberg said:
The time for citizen soldiers is long gone. And language is not that precise. That is why the Supremes have to interpret the laws.
Click to expand...

Supremes interpret the law against the restrictions enforced upon them via the Constitution. shall not be infringed is very precise, as are the words of the founding fathers before, during, and after ratification.
 
Nordberg said:
You do not understand the constitution. The 2nd says a well-regulated militia. That is not what guns in every home and crazy person's hands means. We had no standing army or military training after the revolution. If the Brits returned, we would use citizen soldiers. They came and burned down the Whitehouse. Now we have one of the largest standing armies in the world. We are not dependent on citizen soldiers. The gun manufacturers lied and some supreme bought it. Now America Is a shooting gallery. You believe what gun lobbyists said because you want to.
Case double closed.
Click to expand...

1674497030014-png.1182660
 
RB 60 said:
From my state's (PA) constitution

Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

"...shall not be questioned." Nothing more needs said.
Click to expand...

National law is king. Much more needs to and should be said. We do not have citizen armies and they do not defend the state.
 
Nordberg said:
National law is king. Much more needs to and should be said. We do not have citizen armies and they do not defend the state.
Click to expand...

Ok. The 2nd. Amendment of the United States Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Cope.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no, it's not.


what, exactly, do you believe the phrase 'shall not be infringed' means???



Supremes interpret the law against the restrictions enforced upon them via the Constitution. shall not be infringed is very precise, as are the words of the founding fathers before, during, and after ratification.
Click to expand...

Infringing back then was a musket rifle. Weapons have changed the equation. Read the whole thing, not just half. You are deliberately ignoring the regulated militia part. The lack of infringing refers to weapons used by a citizen army in defense of the state. They did not want to prevent the citizen army from getting as good as they could weapons. But the government was not paying for them. Once we went to a standing army, the entire second is void.
 
Nordberg said:
Infringing back then was a musket rifle. Weapons have changed the equation. Read the whole thing, not just half. You are deliberately ignoring the regulated militia part. The lack of infringing refers to weapons used by a citizen army in defense of the state. They did not want to prevent the citizen army from getting as good as they could weapons. But the government was not paying for them. Once we went to a standing army, the entire second is void.
Click to expand...

the founders DISTRUSTED big government and standing armies. It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that they would then write an amendment guaranteeing ONLY the government have weapons.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the founders DISTRUSTED big government and standing armies. It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that they would then write an amendment guaranteeing ONLY the government have weapons.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they distrusted the people who still leaned British. I know what words you omitted from the 2nd. It is tantamount to lying, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/ It is the depths of dishonesty to cut the words that do not back your gun-loving beliefs. Don't you feel guilty? And of course, the history in 1776 matters too. The fact that the founders had a mistrust of government does not mean we should. We are smarter and know more.
 
Nordberg said:
Infringing back then was a musket rifle. Weapons have changed the equation. Read the whole thing, not just half. You are deliberately ignoring the regulated militia part. The lack of infringing refers to weapons used by a citizen army in defense of the state. They did not want to prevent the citizen army from getting as good as they could weapons. But the government was not paying for them. Once we went to a standing army, the entire second is void.
Click to expand...

So have computers and automobile. In those days free speech was standing on a soap box in the town square, not colluding with violent extremists across the planet at the speed of light. In those days, transportation was limited to one-horse power, not nutjobs driving a a Dodge Charger with 800HP.
 
Nordberg said:
Yeah, they distrusted the people who still leaned British. I know what words you omitted from the 2nd. It is tantamount to lying, https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/ It is the depths of dishonesty to cut the words that do not back your gun-loving beliefs. Don't you feel guilty? And of course, the history in 1776 matters too. The fact that the founders had a mistrust of government does not mean we should. We are smarter and know more.
Click to expand...

The words you say I 'cut' do not change the meaning of who the right applies to, at all. I don't need to feel guilty for following the words of the founders true meanings and advocating for the freedom that the fought and died to give us. Anyone who DOESN'T mistrust government is too stupid to be allowed freedom. you are not smarter and you obviously do not know more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top