Thread: constitutional amendment guaranteeing full auto assault weapon ownership

I'm curious, why exactly is it that the second amendment is viewed as magically immune to any and all regulation, whereas no other amendment is treated the same way? The first amendment says "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", yet they do, and to suggest that every single rule that governs speech is wrong is absurd. The war on drugs is founded entirely on infringements of the fourth amendment. It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed, not the convenience to do so completely unregulated. Why is only the second amendment somehow immune to the same limitations as the rest of the bill of rights?

Originally Posted by Paschendale

I'm curious, why exactly is it that the second amendment is viewed as magically immune to any and all regulation, whereas no other amendment is treated the same way? The first amendment says "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", yet they do, and to suggest that every single rule that governs speech is wrong is absurd. The war on drugs is founded entirely on infringements of the fourth amendment. It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed, not the convenience to do so completely unregulated. Why is only the second amendment somehow immune to the same limitations as the rest of the bill of rights?

Probably because it is essentially an emergency insurance policy to help maintain all the rest.

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

How can there be? Society does not give second chances. But I do know for a fact that if you have a felony charge it is 20 times harder to get a good, steady paying job, no matter your other qualifications. For this reason people often have to fall back into old ways in order to make ends meet.

Not sure what old ways mean, go back to crime?
I see lots of landscapers, bug and weed spray trucks, pool cleaners, carpet cleanrs, etc. out there.. Start a small business, lots of them require very little in the way of upfront expenses. Getting bonded might be an issue depending on the nature of the felony.
But looking for help from the society that doesn't trust the felon is a waste of time. Society isn't the problem near as much as the attitude of the person who has the felony record. I have a relative who went to prison twice, and is out now, hopefully for good. He stole money from people, long story short. Relatives have tried to help him get his head out of his arse, but he has been stubborn.
Even when society does try to help, eventually society gives up on certain people, those who gave up on themselves a long time ago....

Originally Posted by lizzie

Probably because it is essentially an emergency insurance policy to help maintain all the rest.

Discourse has done more to create and protect our rights than weapons ever could. Words are often the tool to topple violent oppressors, who use their weapons to enslave others. If all the gun owners in this country fight the US army, it wouldn't end terribly well for the citizens of this land. It wasn't weapons that brought legal equality among races in this country, nor the rights of women. The people of India drove out the British, the mightiest empire in the world, without taking up arms. Violence doesn't change the world for the better. Even the revolution that forged this country would have been meaningless if not for the words that went along with it. American freedom and democracy weren't created with guns, but with a pen and parchment.

Originally Posted by Paschendale

Discourse has done more to create and protect our rights than weapons ever could. Words are often the tool to topple violent oppressors, who use their weapons to enslave others. If all the gun owners in this country fight the US army, it wouldn't end terribly well for the citizens of this land. It wasn't weapons that brought legal equality among races in this country, nor the rights of women.

You should be aware of the power the government gained with the civil rights bill and giving women rights. Are you saying you think the government didn't get something in exchange? I think you should reconsider that.

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

Is there anyone who actually believes that the commerce clause is a proper delegation of power to the federal government to regulate small arms in violation of the 2nd and Tenth Amendments? because if you believe the federal government should so regulate you will have to make that argument

Yes, I do believe that the commerce clause would give the Congress the authority to regulate the kinds of weapons that are allowed to be manufactured and purchased by civilians-- if said regulation were not specifically and expressly prohibited by the Second Amendment.

Originally Posted by Paschendale

Discourse has done more to create and protect our rights than weapons ever could.

Not correct. The Revolutionary war was not won with words, it was won with cannons, guns, and guerilla warfare. The king of England didn't give two ****s that the founders asserted their rights on paper, matter of fact he sent ships full of men with cannons, guns, swords, and a willingness to suppress those issuing the words. The storming of the Bastille was not done with discourse, it was done with weapons. The last time a group of teenagers tried to topple the regime in China with words was Tiennamin square, tanks and men with guns quickly ended that discourse.

Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir

Yes, I do believe that the commerce clause would give the Congress the authority to regulate the kinds of weapons that are allowed to be manufactured and purchased by civilians-- if said regulation were not specifically and expressly prohibited by the Second Amendment.

It technically wouldn't, but the clause has been gravely mis-interpreted over the last century. Thankfully the second is there to prevent further intrusion using the ninth and tenth revisionism.

Originally Posted by Henrin

You should be aware of the power the government gained with the civil rights bill and giving women rights. Are you saying you think the government didn't get something in exchange? I think you should reconsider that.

Without problems created by idiots there would be fewer laws and regulations. Recent example: idiots text and talk on cell phones while driving, traffic injuries and fatalities rise. Result: government creates new laws banning texting while driving and limiting other cell phone use while driving.

Originally Posted by Paschendale

I'm curious, why exactly is it that the second amendment is viewed as magically immune to any and all regulation, whereas no other amendment is treated the same way? The first amendment says "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", yet they do, and to suggest that every single rule that governs speech is wrong is absurd. The war on drugs is founded entirely on infringements of the fourth amendment. It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed, not the convenience to do so completely unregulated. Why is only the second amendment somehow immune to the same limitations as the rest of the bill of rights?

Your premise seems to be faulty. What makes you think any of those things are constitutional?