Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Latest Assault rifle ban proposal 11/10/17, another argument to try

Discussion in 'Activism' started by myblueheaven, Nov 10, 2017.

?

What are your thoughts on why saault type weapons should not be banned based on the above concept

  1. Do you find this post's argument reasonable?

    60.0%
  2. Do you dissagree with this post's argument?

    40.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. grampajack
    • Contributing Member

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,657
    "After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."

    The 18th amendment didn't include such items. It gave the government the power to legislate within its confines, but not the power to change its scope. For example, a bill to define penalties for various violations would have been constitutional. A bill to legalize beer or outlaw mouthwash would have been unconstitutional, however, as that would have directly contradicted the amendment itself.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2017
  2. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,884
    Location:
    CAAZ
    That's the part you're right about.

    Which is in stark contrast to your previous statement of

    The amendment isn't the law nor is the Constitution. They give power to the legislature to make laws within the framework.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  3. grampajack
    • Contributing Member

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,657
    The supremacy clause establishes the Constitution as the highest law in the land. It goes Constitution, federal law, state law.

    For example, there's a federal law outlawing marijuana, whereas we have lots of state laws making it legal. According to the Constitution, the federal laws trump the state laws. The states can add to the federal law, but they can't contradict it.

    By the same token, the federal government can't make any law that conflicts with the 2nd Amendment. Just like the states can't "interpret" federal law, Congress can't "interpret" the Constitution, and neither can judges. The job of the judges is to enforce the law as it is written.

    For example, let's say the DEA goes in and raids all the legal pot shops in Colorado. A federal judge will be forced to find in favor of the federal government. The judge can't claim that the federal law outlawing pot is a "living document" and arbitrarily find in favor of the state.
     
  4. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    4,606
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    I did not vote, because I could not. There is no "The post's argument is so poorly written, as well as the poll title being misspelled, that I cannot in all seriousness consider it" button on the poll.

    Would Jefferson had wrote " SO we wuz thinkin' yon Kyng Jorge is mad as a beaver, er, bricklayer, oh drat is it hatter? yeah, hatter that weuns figgered wed tell um ta pissoff, right?"

    In order to be taken seriously, particularly in writing, one present one's ideas in a well organized manner.

    Some deconstruction to add clarity:
    The militia in the Revolutionary War did exactly that. The 'assault rilfe' of the day wasnt' actually a rifle, it was the Second Land Pattern Musket, affectionately known as the Brown Bess. Colonial militia did in fact show up with their hunting rifles (Which were 'deadlier, more accurate, but slower rate of fire) and fowling pieces, maybe an older Brown Bess they carried in the Seven Years' War. No one armed them. They provided their own weapons, at first. Some several years in, French M1777 Charleville Muskets started arriving, but not at first.

    I'll not go there; kozak6 answered it quite well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  5. entropy

    entropy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    4,606
    Location:
    G_d's Country, WI
    When antis mention this, I usually respond with, "OK. Substitute 1st Amendment for 2nd." Usually this is in response to "The Founding Fathers couldn't have anticipated machine guns!" Nor could they have anticipated the Internet, You Tube, etc. but even mention eliminating the First Amendment, and they go ballistic. Pun intended.
    We get what you are trying to say, myblueheaven. But the task of deciphering it dilutes the message, and your lack of proper grammar creates the possibility you might be misunderstood. I had to reread the chunk I quoted in this post a couple times to be certain you weren't actually advocating repealing the 2nd Amendment.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  6. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,307
    Location:
    Virginia
    Now that the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution) has been mentioned, I think we need to clarify it. The text is as follows:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
    This is really a federal vs. state thing, not a "pecking order" thing. (Although, under Marbury v. Madison, the Constitution -- as interpreted by the Supreme Court -- does override federal law.) Most of the cases involving the Supremacy Clause have to do with voiding state laws that are found to be in conflict with federal law. The Supremacy Clause is the basis for the doctrine of "federal preemption."

    The Supremacy Clause may actually work against the cause of gun rights. For example, some states have attempted to exempt some gun transactions from certain provisions of the GCA or NFA if the transactions take place entirely within the boundaries of those respective states. These attempts fail because of the Supremacy Clause. On the other hand, a state or local provision that is found to egregiously violate the 2nd Amendment would fail also (see McDonald v. Chicago). Most state provisions that are stricter than federal law tend to pass muster, however.
     
  7. grampajack
    • Contributing Member

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,657
    The states are in the right because the 2nd Amendment clearly voids any and all federal firearms laws, and states like California and New Jersey don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. They can't infringe on gun rights anymore so than Colorado can legally allow pot sales.
     
  8. 1911 guy

    1911 guy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,555
    Location:
    Garrettsville, Oh.
    I'll contribute to the thread drift a bit. The founders intended the Constitution to constrain government. Wrangling new meanings out of the text and contorting it to fit any political agenda is wrong and flies in the face of the plain meaning painstakingly set forth by the drafters of the document. If you don't like it, amend it. They provided for just such a procedure. But to torture new meaning out of plain text takes a college degree, apparently.

    Place the amendment in question in the context of a people who had just fought and won a war using a great many privately owned weapons, including ships and cannon. Now tell me they intended to restrict the right of the people to bear arms as long as it was "reasonable".
     
    grampajack likes this.
  9. hdwhit
    • Contributing Member

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    3,409
    Location:
    Frisco, TX
    Strategic Arms are outside the scope of this site's topics of discussion.
     
  10. hdwhit
    • Contributing Member

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    3,409
    Location:
    Frisco, TX
    Actually, following your logic, since the 2A is tied to martial service (i.e. the reference to the "well regulated militia"), the absence of a specific reference to "personal defense" or "hunting", which are clearly not associated with a militia could be - and the anti-gunners certainly would have - summarily banned them they are outside the scope of the amendment. The only thing that would be protected would be those weapons actually used by the militia.

    So, no Winchester Model 70s, or Marlin Model 336s, but selective-fire M-16s for everyone.

    That is, of course, an absurd result and the reason why you need to read the Supreme Court rulings on the subject and then reconstruct your argument.
     
  11. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,884
    Location:
    CAAZ

    That doesn't really do anything for the contradiction you made.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2017
  12. grampajack
    • Contributing Member

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,657
    The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant the militia the right to keep and bear arms. It grants the people the unlimited right to keep and bear arms because of the militia, namely so that they can put it down if the government misuses it.

    What contradiction?
     
  13. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,307
    Location:
    Virginia
    No, it doesn't (unless you are living in some parallel universe). I don't know of a single Supreme Court case that held that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and unqualified. Your blanket statement is not founded in the law, history, or even coherent political theory. No constitutional right can be completely unqualified, unless you want social anarchy.

    Sure, I would like to be able to own any weapon I wanted. Basing that on the 2nd Amendment is about as effective as howling at the moon.
     
    Theohazard likes this.
  14. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,884
    Location:
    CAAZ
    I pointed it out already.
     
  15. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,884
    Location:
    CAAZ
    Even the 1st has restrictions as you pointed out already.

    Not quite parallel.
     
  16. grampajack
    • Contributing Member

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,657
    I have no idea what you're talking about.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We all know what arms means, we should all know what infringed means, and people basically refers to anyone who is a free citizen. Translation: If you can vote, then you can drive around town with a .50 cal mounted on your car, and any law to the contrary is unconstitutional.
     
  17. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,307
    Location:
    Virginia
    This isn't the first time you've expounded this (crackpot) theory. According to the writings of the Founders, the "constitutional militia" is "the people." They are one and the same. The 2nd Amendment was adopted so that the people would be guaranteed the means to resist foreign invasion or domestic (i.e., federal) encroachment, considering the fact that the early republic did not envisage a large standing army. (The War of 1812 cured the country of that self-delusion right quick. You can't fight a world power -- Britain -- with a raw, untrained citizen militia.)

    BTW, the original concept of the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with personal self-defense. That was simply a given in 1791. No, the right to keep and bear arms was a civic right. This is where Justice Scalia, writing in the Heller case, made a serious mistake. He reoriented the Amendment to define a strictly personal right, and not a civic right. That's how he was able to conclude that we could be limited to just a handgun (registered and licensed) for self-defense in the home.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2017
  18. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,307
    Location:
    Virginia
    Well, just try to drive around town with an unregistered .50 cal. MG mounted on your car. You're probably going to jail (or to a lunatic asylum) and no amount of appeals to the 2nd Amendment is going to save you. You have three choices: obey the law, disobey the law and accept the consequences (civil disobedience), or disobey the law and defy the government (insurrection). At that point it does not remain an academic debate.
     
  19. grampajack
    • Contributing Member

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,657
    The militia spoken of in the Constitution is the National Guard. There was debate amongst early Americans about what should constitute the militia, and on a philosophical level there were other definitions of the militia, but the legal definition is outlined in Article 1.

    Like I said, the rule of law is dead. You can grow pot in your front yard in Colorado, yet you can't have an 11 round magazine, despite the fact that the first thing is legitimately illegal and the second thing is guaranteed as a God given right by the highest law of the land. And if you're Hillary Clinton you can rig an election and then blame it on the Russians. Welcome to 21st century America.

    Legal and illegal has nothing to do with anything. It's all a matter of which laws the government decides it wants to enforce that day, and of course they will never enforce any on themselves.
     
  20. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,307
    Location:
    Virginia
    Absolutely not. Even under current law, the National Guard is just the "organized" militia, whereas there is a much broader "unorganized" militia. Under the original constitutional concept, the militia was supposed to be the whole body of the people (at least those that were capable of bearing arms). Besides that, the National Guard could not have been "spoken of" in the Constitution since it only goes back to 1903. Historical anachronism.

    Mobilizing the unorganized militia is the basis for the wartime draft. In WW1, the army consisted of three categories: the regulars (the United States Army, or USA), the National Guard, and the huge draftee Army of the United States (AUS). Regular officers were usually given a higher AUS rank for the war, and had to revert back to their USA rank after the war.
    Maybe the rule of law as you define it is dead. Your opinion is irrelevant. The system (the courts, Congress, the executive agencies) goes on its way, and in the real world we have to deal with that. You can howl at the moon all you like.
     
  21. grampajack
    • Contributing Member

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,657
    There is only one Constitutional definition of the militia, and it's given in Article 1. Besides, the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about an "unorganized militia," even if you want to argue that such a thing even exists. It says a "well regulated militia."

    I define the law as it is written, which is the entire basis for the rule of law. And while we do have to deal with the real world, as you put it, we should also educate ourselves. It is a lack of education that degraded public awareness to a point where the courts can get away with the nonsense they've been peddling for the last hundred years.

    Sounds to me like you're happy with the status quo, or you just get off on schadenfreude, and you're trying to justify it as somehow being right. I don't know where you're politics are, but right now you're coming across like one of those "gun owners" who supports "common sense gun control."
     
  22. Spats McGee

    Spats McGee Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,286
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I can assure you that the amendments to the constitution constitute law. Specifically, they are restrictions on the activities of government, and when the gov't violates one of those amendments, it violates the law.
    The Bill of Rights are amendments to the constitution, and thus, a part thereof.
     
  23. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,884
    Location:
    CAAZ
    Maybe I'm not articulating correctly.

    I agree with what you said. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.

    But it isnt a statute law.

    It gave law making powers to the legislative branch and a way to evaluate those laws against the framework of the Constitution by the judicial branch.

    Gramps is blurring the line between statute law and the Constitution.
     
  24. everydefense

    everydefense Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2016
    Messages:
    253
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I would return to read and vote if the OP is reformatted. Thanks.
     
  25. grampajack
    • Contributing Member

    grampajack AR Junkie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,657
    The Constitution is a statute.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page