• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Define assault weapon

Why would you purposely want to keep the militia weak and and ineffective?

Perhaps we could have them rent home depot trucks in case of an emergency conflict.
 
For those claiming that there still is a militia and it is made up of the citizens, perhaps you should read the US Constitution - Article I, Section 8 , clause 16 which clearly shows Congress was given the power over the militia and thus their weapons as well. And that applies to both unorganized militias and organized and clearly show INTENT of the Founders to control the militia.

I still maintain that the militia as described in the Second Amendment has not existed for ages. However, for those who do insist upon its existence beyond the paper containing the words, keep in mind that this clause of the Constitution clearly shows INTENT of the Founders for Congress to regulate all militia members.

So you cannot have it both ways.
Sure we can. The Second Amendment forbids the government from abusing its power over militia weapons to deprive militiamen of effective combat weapons.


Founding Father George Mason is often quoted by militia advocates that the militia is the WHOLE OF THE PEOPLE. And Given the constitutional provision already supplied in this thread, it is then obvious that there was INTENT for the Congress to regulate the weapons - at the very least weapons owned by the militia - or THE WHOLE PEOPLE.
Regulation of militia arms is fine. But the regulations have to allow militiamen to have effective combat weapons.


And keep in mind that these were NOT weapons under lock and key at some government base or installation but rather the private weapons owned by the members and which they would be using for defense purposes.
Yes indeed. If the courts ever start upholding the militia aspect of the Second Amendment, I'm getting a whole closet full of 84mm bazookas.

Let's see a bad guy's body armor stop that. :cool:

AT4 - Wikipedia
 
So why don't you have your own private nuclear arms?
Because the government can demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting them.


Who said anything about the necessity of anything being useful when talking about constitutionally guaranteed rights?
If something is not useful for the exercise of a right, then it is hard to see how the possession of it is guaranteed by that right.


The same holds true for nuclear arms.
Not really. Militiamen typically use infantry combat weapons.

Nuclear weapons don't tend to be used by soldiers slogging it out in the mud.


Not any sillier than you telling us you need these crazy weapons to “protect your home”. What, do you live in a war zone?
What crazy weapons? People are arguing for their right to have ordinary semi-auto weapons.
 
My post clearly refers to INTENT of the Founders. Using this part of the Constitution, it is easy to determine that Congress was intended to have powers to regulate weapons since they considered the militia population to be rather large and rather wide. So ANY firearm law would fit under this.
Not if that firearms law doesn't deal with militia arms.


YES, it is irrelevant whether I or you or any of us believes the militia exists since the 2nd Amendment protecting firearms ownership has expanded in its outlook and is now seen as a personal right
There has been no expansion. It has always been a personal right.
 
YES, it is irrelevant whether I or you or any of us believes the militia exists since the 2nd Amendment protecting firearms ownership has expanded in its outlook and is now seen as a personal right Yes, that is true. So let us not forget that the Founders intended that Congress have the power to regulate firearms and the expansion that occurred under Heller should also be regulated in turn as part of the powers of the Congress. I have always said that the lack of a clear statement from Scalia on that front is the opening that provides the right wing with a line of attack - as wrong and as dishonest as it is - and thus becomes the great weakness and fatal flaw in the right wing properly applying the Second in the modern era.

I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you trying to assert that since the 2A militia reference no longer applies to 'the people' that it also no longer applies to 'arms'? It seems clear to most that the 2A was never about sporting or hunting 'arms' - it was always about arms suitable for militia (military?) use.
 
Sure we can. The Second Amendment forbids the government from abusing its power over militia weapons to deprive militiamen of effective combat weapons.

What the Second does is grant a right. As long as that right exists, it is intact. It does not forbid the government from doing anything other than causing that right to NOT be exercised.
 
Not if that firearms law doesn't deal with militia arms.



There has been no expansion. It has always been a personal right.

ALL firearms come under the militia provision.

Before Scalia in Heller, can you tell me when this was declared by government as a personal right?
 
I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you trying to assert that since the 2A militia reference no longer applies to 'the people' that it also no longer applies to 'arms'? It seems clear to most that the 2A was never about sporting or hunting 'arms' - it was always about arms suitable for militia (military?) use.

The provisions in the Constitution clearly show that the INTENT of the Founders was to have Congress regulate firearms.
 
A militia is different than an army. Do you understand the difference?

If the purpose of a militia is really to be a deterrent against potential government tyranny, they would do much better if they had something a little more than just little semi automatic weapons.

These weapons are way too little to fight a real army, and way too much to just protect a home. Seems pretty random where you’re drawing the line on what the constitution means by “arms”.
 
If the purpose of a militia is really to be a deterrent against potential government tyranny, they would do much better if they had something a little more than just little semi automatic weapons.

These weapons are way too little to fight a real army, and way too much to just protect a home. Seems pretty random where you’re drawing the line on what the constitution means by “arms”.

Obviously, that's plenty. Otherwise, the democrat communists wouldn't be trying so hard to disarm the citizenry.
 
As far as I am aware, that is the sole direct reference where ARMS are named.

What is the basis for your claim that congress was specifically empowered to regulate firearms? If the only specific mention of arms (anywhere in the constitution) was the 2A, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement, then what are you talking about?
 
What is the basis for your claim that congress was specifically empowered to regulate firearms? If the only specific mention of arms (anywhere in the constitution) was the 2A, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms without infringement, then what are you talking about?

I have already provided that. Usually you are far more reasonable than to ask for a reputation of what has already been recently provided.

I would imagine you and I strongly disagree about when the right is INFRINGED.

And that is the key point in these debates.
 
I have already provided that. Usually you are far more reasonable than to ask for a reputation of what has already been recently provided.

I would imagine you and I strongly disagree about when the right is INFRINGED.

And that is the key point in these debates.

Very much so since I see 'shall not be infringed' as meaning 'shall not be abridged or denied' and you see it as meaning 'shall not be denied'. The SCOTUS, it seems, has affirmed both (in separate cases) but has yet to define what constitutes a gun which is "in common use for lawful purposes". It would certainly seem to apply to any gun (type?) which has had (recent?) prior sales in the millions by FFL dealers which would include those that some folks wish to reclassify as "assault weapons".
 
yup - that is part of what it says.
It's the part that you asked for a quote of.


What the Second does is grant a right.
That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects a preexisting right.


As long as that right exists, it is intact. It does not forbid the government from doing anything other than causing that right to NOT be exercised.
That is incorrect. The government is generally forbidden from passing any law that has any impact at all on the exercise of a right.

The Supreme Court does allow the government some limited exceptions, but these exceptions are limited.


ALL firearms come under the militia provision.
That is incorrect. The militia provision deals only with militia-related arms.


Before Scalia in Heller, can you tell me when this was declared by government as a personal right?
US v. Miller (1939) comes to mind.

Also Rex v. Gardner (1739), Mallock v. Eastley (1744), Wingfield v. Stratford (1752), and Rex v. Dewhurst (1820).


The provisions in the Constitution clearly show that the INTENT of the Founders was to have Congress regulate firearms.
Only if they are militia firearms.

The Second Amendment forbids the government from abusing this power to prevent militiamen from having effective combat weapons.
 
ALL firearms come under the militia provision.

Before Scalia in Heller, can you tell me when this was declared by government as a personal right?

Didn't you just say that all of us are in the militia?
 
The provisions in the Constitution clearly show that the INTENT of the Founders was to have Congress regulate firearms.

In order to ensure that the militia has adequate military capability, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom