That technology has progressed to the point where it is 'more dangerous' is not limited to weapons; if your argument regarding weapons is sound, then it is also sound in those other areas - but no, the 4th still applies to telephones and the 1st still applies to CNN and the internet.
We're talking about guns, not F15s.The reasons you can't own an F-15...
Not as the term is used in the context of the 2nd.An F-15 is an "arm" a howitzer is an "arm", a nuclear bomb is a "arm,"
Yes, yes it is. As such, it is protected by the 2nd.a full automatic machine gun is an arm.
You very certainly have the right to purchase and use a machinegun.But no one has a right to purchase one of these things...
"Reaonable regulation" miust pass the strict scrutiny test.I am not advocating the complete and total outlawing of guns or firearms, I am a gun owner myself, what I am advocating is reasonable regulation.
That is, it must acheieve a compelling state interest in the most narrow and least limiting way possible.
Show that your ban on machineguns does this.
Um...no. Most states do not agree as most states do not ban machineguns - and even if they did, popular consensus in state law does not trump the 2nd amendment.I think the line drawn at fully-automatic is a reasonable regulation, a line which most states agree too.
Under both of the relevant SCotUS decisions, machineguns qualify as 'arms' and as such fall under the protection of the 2md.
If that's the case, it is then impossible to argue how machineguns do not qualify as 'arms' and thus fall under its protection.I know exactly what the Constitution says, and I know exactly what the intention of the 2nd Amendment is.
This is just a re-statement of the unsound technology argument.But fact is that it came into the Constitution in 1790, 220 years ago, and the changes that have taken place in the mean time need to be considered.
Of course not -- that's why there is an Article V.The Constitution is NOT the Bible, it is not some holy document which changing is some kind of sin.
Until it is changed, however, it must be adhered to, including the protection of the right to arms.
You're confusing 'interpretation' and/or 'clarification' with 'change'.Its a malleable document that is meant to be changed, has been changed(not just with amendments but with judicial rulings and interpretation, and comes with procedures for how to change it.
You do realize that if you have a vagina, you could turn hundreds of tricks?
Point is, we do not restrict peoples rights becuase of what the might do with them - that's called prior restraint, and violates the Constitution.
The SCotUS hase defined 'arms', and it includes all classes of firearms.What I'm advocating is a change to the 2nd amendment which better defines what kind of arms can and cannot be owned.
Yes. Those that pass the strict scrutiny test, just like for all other constitutional rights.What is widely accepted are restrictions of some type or another on those
Take the restrcitions on the first amendment, apply them to guns, and you'll see what I mean.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville