IMHO "Assault Weapons" Ban Is Not Unconstitutional

[stuckinsocal]

So how do I have the right to keep and bear arms except for the ones that have certain features that the government bans? It's like saying that I have the right to freedom of speech unless I say something against government laws or policies. I either have the right or I don't. Gun control is not about protecting people, saving lives or any other BS "it's for our safety" argument that people come up with.
The OP's argument is the exact same argument that people use to say that handgun bans, concealed/open carry bans are not unconstitutional; "we're not infringing on your rights, we're just saying that you can't do it in certain places and that there have to be 'reasonable' reastrictions on it". The right to keep and bear arms means that I can have whatever arms I want, carry them wherever and whenever I want. And it also means that I can have them in any configuration I want whether it's having guns painted bright pink, having kittens painted onto them, disguised as a belt buckle, or having guns with skulls painted onto them. Prohibiting me from owning guns that have bayonet lugs IS unconstitutional because you're saying that I CAN'T own any guns with bayonet lugs.

That's exactly what's happened here in California. I can't own semi automatic rifles with pistol grips and detachable magainzes. The idea that it's for public safety is just pure and simple BS, and any sane gun owner wouldn't disagree. But to say that it's not unconstitutional is also untrue. How can you say that I have the right to own guns, but then say that it's perfectly legal for me to be prohibited from owning certain guns with specific features. ANY rule/law that prohibits people from owning or carrying ANY type of firearms they choose at ANY time and at ANY place is an infringment on the 2nd Amendment. Anything different than that is the anthesis of the 2nd Amendment, and if we can say that the 2A doesn't really mean what it says, why can't we say that the 1st, 3d, 4th, or any other ones don't really mean what they say?

In post #71 you wrote "This country was founded based on Liberty, not Libertarianism." Well, that's not you really mean. What you meant is that this country was founded on Democracy, and not Independence. Does it make sense that I completely misconstrued what you wrote in plain English? Of course it does, as it should; you wrote that sentence in plain English and is understandable by anyone who has a basic understanding of the English language. Yet, that's exactly what you're doing with the 2nd Amendment. You're saying that it doesn't really mean that I have the right to keep and bear arms; instead, I only have the right to keep and bear arms that the government approves. Either you're just not understanding the Constitution, or you're a troll.

 

[Steve9305]

Your post makes no sense. The AWB was aimed at certain firearms not cosmetic features. The features listed in the ban was a "catch all". In that they banned any weapon that looked like the weapons they wanted banned. It was also designed to limit the number of rounds a firearm could hold. Had there not been a sunset provision in the law and had they not grandfathered in weapons and magazines made before the law went into effect, it would been a supreme court case that would easily been determined to be unconstitutional. Finally the features banned were not cosmetic but served a tactical purpose, a purpose the government didn't want us to have. This act clearly infringed on the right to bear arms.

 

[livewire98801]

The AWB was aimed at certain firearms not cosmetic features

Ya know. . . on thinking about it, are there ANY 'features' or components of the standard AR or AK designs (typically targeted by AWB style legislation) that are cosmetic? The only thing I can think of is the grenade launcher mount cutout on my AR-15, but even that is because I can't buy the launcher in my state. . . it serves a function on the original design. Everything else serves a clear purpose. . .

 

[Gouranga]

IMO, banning anything specific to firearms design, color, cosmetics is infringing on gun ownership. It is a slippery slope that cannot be allowed. Every rule like this further limits the weapons that can be purchased, it limits the supply, ups the price, and makes guns a little less available to the public. According to SCOTUS, 2a is open to "reasonable" restrictions. I would say, cosmetic restrictions are NOT reasonable and therefor not constitutional.

 

[Charleo0192]

So were allowed to changed the bill or rights now?













Didn't think so, yet people still feel they can manipulate the wording of it to suit their likings