• 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

If there is no militia, then militia regulations do not apply to anyone.

Because militia regulations don't apply to people who are not part of the militia.

If they aren't the militia, then they are not subject to militia regulations.
Isn't logic awesome?
 

It an either/or thing. If there is a militia, then congress needs to arm and discipline it. And if we're all members of the militia, you and I would both have superior officers. I have not been contacted by any superior officer. Ever.

Then on the other hand, if there is no militia, then there is nothing for congress to arm and discipline.
 
It an either/or thing. If there is a militia, then congress needs to arm and discipline it. And if we're all members of the militia, you and I would both have superior officers. I have not been contacted by any superior officer. Ever.

Then on the other hand, if there is no militia, then there is nothing for congress to arm and discipline.

Or there is a militia (which by law there is) but the organized part has gotten more organized and the existence of a large standing army has made the unorganized part pretty much name only.

Analogy: Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada. That she exercises zero authority over Canada does not mean she’s not their queen.
 
Or there is a militia (which by law there is) but the organized part has gotten more organized and the existence of a large standing army has made the unorganized part pretty much name only.

Analogy: Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada. That she exercises zero authority over Canada does not mean she’s not their queen.

So congress needs to arm us, per the constitution? Is this what you're saying?
 
Three round burst is literally automatic fire for three rounds.
Not really. When on burst mode, the trigger does not need to be held down for 3 rounds to fire, unlike full-auto where rounds only fire until the trigger is released. Burst will fire 3 rounds regardless of if you hold the trigger down or not because it counts notches in the sear before the sear locks the hammer and stops additional firing.

And the last time I checked the AK47 and the later the AK74 were not 3 round burst. Nor were their Chinese counterparts.
The US military does not issue the AK47.
 
Yes, you extensively covered that you don't think there is any longer a militia. I read your earlier posts very carefully. Therefore, there is no militia for congress to arm and discipline.

already explained in previous posts.
 
If there is no militia, then militia regulations do not apply to anyone.



Because militia regulations don't apply to people who are not part of the militia.



If they aren't the militia, then they are not subject to militia regulations.

If the militia was made up of THE WHOLE PEOPLE, it clearly was the intent of the Founders that the constitutional provisions over the militia apply to the entire population and are in effect regardless if there is a militia or not.

In addition, Article I Section 8, clause 1 provides powers to regulate guns regardless of any impact or membership in a militia as does clause 3 provide this power as well.

I use clause 16 to show INTENT over the entire population.
 
If the militia was made up of THE WHOLE PEOPLE, it clearly was the intent of the Founders that the constitutional provisions over the militia apply to the entire population
Only in respect to their militia arms and militia duties.


and are in effect regardless if there is a militia or not.
That is incorrect. Militia regulations only apply when there is a militia for the regulations to apply to.

And if they do apply, then militiamen have the right to have effective combat weapons.


In addition, Article I Section 8, clause 1 provides powers to regulate guns regardless of any impact or membership in a militia as does clause 3 provide this power as well.
The Second Amendment forbids anything that prevents militiamen from having effective combat weapons. It also forbids anything that prevents everyone else from having effective self defense weapons. And it forbids any restriction on guns that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest.


I use clause 16 to show INTENT over the entire population.
You're forgetting that the Second Amendment modifies clause 16.
 
In this case, its attempt fails miserably since it is broadly misunderstood by you and misapplied.

No. It wasn't misunderstood and misapplied.
 
Only in respect to their militia arms and militia duties.



That is incorrect. Militia regulations only apply when there is a militia for the regulations to apply to.

And if they do apply, then militiamen have the right to have effective combat weapons.



The Second Amendment forbids anything that prevents militiamen from having effective combat weapons. It also forbids anything that prevents everyone else from having effective self defense weapons. And it forbids any restriction on guns that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest.



You're forgetting that the Second Amendment modifies clause 16.

Show me where clause 16 is now null and void because of the Second Amendment.

The only thing forbidden by the Second is that the the right cannot be infringed. That is is. As long as the right can be exercised, it is intact and not infringed.

This is not about who is in and out of the militia. We already have a quote from an influential Founding Father that the militia was THE WHOLE PEOPLE. So it is clear that the entire population was being targeted in any regulations applying to the militia. There is no difference. The question of INTENT is why the clause is important and the INTENT was to allow Congress to pass laws for THE WHOLE PEOPLE regardless of changes in the militia or the disappearance of it altogether over time.
 
Last edited:
Show me where clause 16 is now null and void because of the Second Amendment.

The only thing forbidden by the Second is that the the right cannot be infringed. That is is. As long as the right can be exercised, it is intact and not infringed.

Clause 16 says that congress needs to arm me. Where is my machine gun??
 
Clause 16 says that congress needs to arm me. Where is my machine gun??

Ask Congress. That answer has not changed no matter how many times you engage is silly repetition even though you were previously answered.

This is merely your defining and dishonest tactic.
 
Ask Congress. That answer has not changed no matter how many times you engage is silly repetition even though you were previously answered.

This is merely your defining and dishonest tactic.

It says arm and discipline the militia.
 
It says arm and discipline the militia.

Congress carries out that section when it arms the various armed forces of the USA which has replaced the militia.
 
The whole of the people

And that is met when ALL OF THE PEOPLE can enlist in the Armed Forces and make themselves available for military service and all the equipment that the government makes available to them.
 
I consider that to be dicta. Members of an actual militia organized by the government could make a case, separate from Heller, that they have the right to keep combat weapons at home.
Any weapon used in combat is a "combat weapon," and they don't have to include firearms. Stick to what the Second Amendment actually says. In this case "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." Which only includes arms that are bearable. So while a tank or a fighter jet may indeed be "combat weapons" they are not the weapons referred to by the Second Amendment.

Weapons provided by the government to militia members remain the property of the government, and therefore should be maintained in an armory on government property. When I served on active duty I also had a number of my private firearms with me. I was required to store them at the armory. I had access to my firearms any time I desired, but because I lived in a barracks on base the only safe location where I could store my firearms was in the armory.

Just because the US Constitution requires Congress to provide for the organized militia does not mean the equipment provided suddenly becomes the personal property of the militia members. Even in today's military enlisted personnel are given their initial set of uniforms for free. Enlisted are expected to replace any missing or damaged part of their uniform out of their own pocket. Officers have to buy their uniforms. Government issued weapons are issued by the armory and returned to the armory when finished.

The Supreme Court is allowing many other violations of the Tenth Amendment to stand.

Nearly all federal gun control is a violation of the Tenth Amendment, for example.
All government gun control is an infringement. You could fill volumes about what the Supreme Court has failed to do, like allowing States to abuse the Eighth Amendment for 153 years before finally incorporating it and applying it to the States in February 2019. This is what happens when you have a court that decides to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights, even though the Fourteenth Amendment requires total incorporation. The way the Supreme Court has approached it, it will literally takes centuries before the Bill of Rights will be incorporated and applied to every State.
 
And that is met when ALL OF THE PEOPLE can enlist in the Armed Forces and make themselves available for military service and all the equipment that the government makes available to them.

So a person who hasn't enlisted in the armed forces is not in the militia? So then clause 16 doesn't apply to them?
 
So a person who hasn't enlisted in the armed forces is not in the militia? So then clause 16 doesn't apply to them?

All you need for Congress to regulate weapons is Article I, Section 8, Clause I.

Clause 16 shows that the Founders had clear and obvious INTENT for Congress to regulate weapons for ALL THE PEOPLE. But if it were not there, Clause 1 does the trick very nicely. So it matters not if there is a militia or if there is no longer one or if they arm you or not or if you are in the armed services or not. You are a citizen and Congress can pass laws covering you under Section 8.
 
Back
Top Bottom