Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Imperializt Russia]

It's in tiny eyestrain font and has paragraphs like every thirty lines and no line spacing, it's absurdly hard to read. And I am not reading it.

I'm sure you can find a better summary than a four thousand word essay.

I summarized above that amendment 2 is there for enemies foreign and domestic. The only real way to ban or limit gun possession in the U.S. is to repeal amendment 2. Anything else is bollocks. If you want "gun control" just say you want a convention to repeal the 2nd amendment. That's all I am saying.

The wording of the 2A is that the right to bear arms may not be infringed. Gun control is not incompatible with that at all, since it does not state how easy it shall be to bear arms, or what arms may be brought to bear.

Your summary "yeah, it's domestic tyrants too", when supported by a wall of legalese like that, is just you telling me that's what it summarises to. You could at least highlight and repost the actually-relevant portions of text.

[Annorax]

I summarized above that amendment 2 is there for enemies foreign and domestic. The only real way to ban or limit gun possession in the U.S. is to repeal amendment 2. Anything else is bollocks. If you want "gun control" just say you want a convention to repeal the 2nd amendment. That's all I am saying.

The wording of the 2A is that the right to bear arms may not be infringed. Gun control is not incompatible with that at all, since it does not state how easy it shall be to bear arms, or what arms may be brought to bear.

Your summary "yeah, it's domestic tyrants too", when supported by a wall of legalese like that, is just you telling me that's what it summarises to. You could at least highlight and repost the actually-relevant portions of text.

Shall not be infringed does not need to be "interpreted". It is very clear, probably the most clear of all the amendments. I will go ahead and do everyone's homework for them:

"Hamilton evidently felt that the militia composed of the body of the people would provide a deterrent to a federal standing army or the organized militia, only because the people had the right to keep and bear arms. The states, however, wanted this right to be guaranteed explicitly. A number of them, therefore, proposed amending the Constitution to guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms."

"The significance of the foregoing history is that the joining of "a well regulated militia" with "the right to keep and bear arms" was a natural and logical result of the experience of the men who had led the Revolution. Only if individuals had the right to keep and bear arms could the people provide for their own defense and self-preservation as well as in their capacity as members of the militia, provide for the common defense from a foreign invader or as a check against the internal usurpation of liberty by a standing army of the central government."

"The idea of the armed people maintaining "public security" mentioned in this passage from Presser, was based on the common law concept that loyal individuals had the right and duty to resist malefactors and the disloyal, such as robbers and burglars, and to use deadly force, if necessary, to do so. The Second Amendment thus also contemplates the right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to be continuously able to maintain the "security of a free State" by aiding in the enforcement of criminal laws such as by making citizens' arrests and aiding peace officers in arresting malefactors. Joyce Lee Malcolm, Disarmed: The Loss of the Right to Bear Arms in Restoration England, p. 5 (Cambridge: The Mary Ingraham Bunting Institute of Radcliffe College, 1980). Rex v. Compton, 22 Liber Assisarum (Book of Assizes 1347) placitum 55, trans. in J.H. Beale, Jr., A Selection of Cases and other Authorities Upon Criminal Law, p. 501 (2d ed. 1907). E. Coke Institutes of the Laws of England at 56 (1648). Bohlen and Shulman, Arrest With and Without A Warrant, 75 U.Pa.L.Rev. 485, 497 (1927)."

[The Lone Alliance]

What this means of course is that I should be legally allowed to buy an F-22, or a Predator, or a 155mm howitzer, or a M1 Abrams, or an Arleigh Burke class Destroyer.

The F-22 is an aircraft.
Predator is also an aircraft
Abrams is a Motor Vehicle
A Burke is a ship
The only thing out of that that's even applicable is the Howitzer

And apparently you can buy a barrel of one online... if you have around 20 grand.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Given that privateering is enshrined in the constitution I'm sure they didn't intend to forbid you from owning an armed vessel.

On the other hand this isn't the turn of the 19th century and maybe things have to change.

[Annorax]

Given that privateering is enshrined in the constitution I'm sure they didn't intend to forbid you from owning an armed vessel.

On the other hand this isn't the turn of the 19th century and maybe things have to change.

Ok that is fair enough. It still goes back to my post saying that everyone should be honest and just say they want to repeal amendment 2 because that is really what this is about. You cannot be a "gun control" advocate and support amendment 2 at the same time in good conscience.

[Esternial]

Given that privateering is enshrined in the constitution I'm sure they didn't intend to forbid you from owning an armed vessel.

On the other hand this isn't the turn of the 19th century and maybe things have to change.

Ok that is fair enough. It still goes back to my post saying that everyone should be honest and just say they want to repeal amendment 2 because that is really what this is about. You cannot be a "gun control" advocate and support amendment 2 at the same time in good conscience.

So then why exactly are there currently regulations and restrictions?

Surely by your logic they'd all have been struck from being unconstitutional.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

So then why exactly are there currently regulations and restrictions?

Surely by your logic they'd all have been struck from being unconstitutional.

Expedience.

They probably actually are unconstitutional, but the second amendment is so emotive (and so difficult to repeal nationwide) that the best the US government is going to do without a revolution that gets rid of the document in its entirety is limited control, and Supreme Court judges are smart enough to know that.

[Annorax]

So then why exactly are there currently regulations and restrictions?

Surely by your logic they'd all have been struck from being unconstitutional.

Expedience.

They probably actually are unconstitutional, but the second amendment is so emotive (and so difficult to repeal nationwide) that the best the US government is going to do without a revolution that gets rid of the document in its entirety is limited control, and Supreme Court judges are smart enough to know that.

Correct-a-mondo. If it can be repealed with a vote peacefully I think most would comply. Good luck with that.

[Esternial]

So then why exactly are there currently regulations and restrictions?

Surely by your logic they'd all have been struck from being unconstitutional.

Expedience.

They probably actually are unconstitutional, but the second amendment is so emotive (and so difficult to repeal nationwide) that the best the US government is going to do without a revolution that gets rid of the document in its entirety is limited control, and Supreme Court judges are smart enough to know that.

Dunno, maybe the Second Amendment isn't as water-tight as people seem to think it is.

If such unconstitutional laws can be made then invoking the Second Amendment as an argument loses its significance, not just on topics it doesn't actually address (but which some think it does) but also on topics it DOES address.

[Annorax]

Expedience.

They probably actually are unconstitutional, but the second amendment is so emotive (and so difficult to repeal nationwide) that the best the US government is going to do without a revolution that gets rid of the document in its entirety is limited control, and Supreme Court judges are smart enough to know that.

Dunno, maybe the Second Amendment isn't as water-tight as people seem to think it is.

If such unconstitutional laws can be made then invoking the Second Amendment as an argument loses its significance, not just on topics it doesn't actually address (but which some think it does) but also on topics it DOES address.

It is very expensive to take things to the Supreme Court. Amendment 2 loses no significance just because someone cannot afford it. To be honest Amendment 2 has not been challenged that much historically, but when it has gone to the Supremes it has always been upheld the way I described above.

Like I said, good luck getting it repealed, you will need it.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Dunno, maybe the Second Amendment isn't as water-tight as people seem to think it is.

It's completely watertight.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The important part for US gun owners is that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There is basically no to-ing or fro-ing you can do on that. It's exactly what the document says. It isn't what a lot of people want it to say (including myself), but it's what it says.

The militia part is a matter for the government, state or federal. You saw many militia formed in the early days of the Republic. Nowadays it's a little passé.

If such unconstitutional laws can be made then invoking the Second Amendment as an argument loses its significance, not just on topics it doesn't actually address (but which some think it does) but also on topics it DOES address.

Maybe the US needs to have a think about its whole reverence for the Constitution and general myths about its founding and not restrict it to the Constitution. From an outsider's perspective, your obsession with a very very old document that is both used all the time and remarkably hard to alter is like a kind of sickness.

[Annorax]

Dunno, maybe the Second Amendment isn't as water-tight as people seem to think it is.

It's completely watertight.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The important part for US gun owners is that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There is basically no to-ing or fro-ing you can do on that. It's exactly what the document says. It isn't what a lot of people want it to say (including myself), but it's what it says.

The militia part is a matter for the government, state or federal. You saw many militia formed in the early days of the Republic. Nowadays it's a little passé.

If such unconstitutional laws can be made then invoking the Second Amendment as an argument loses its significance, not just on topics it doesn't actually address (but which some think it does) but also on topics it DOES address.

Maybe the US needs to have a think about its whole reverence for the Constitution and general myths about its founding and not restrict it to the Constitution. From an outsider's perspective, your obsession with a very very old document that is both used all the time and remarkably hard to alter is like a kind of sickness.

Please enlighten me to what myths that might be. Also from an American perspective, why should anyone care what a foreigner thinks about the system? It is hard to argue that it has not worked well, America is a very powerful successful country is it not?

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes, and the Constitution is not responsible for that.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Please enlighten me to what myths that might be.

The whole thing where people try to invoke the Founding Fathers on various things like it actually matters. You have no doubt seen or heard it done plenty of times.

Basically "what would Jesus do" but with Thomas Jefferson or Washington, or whoever else.

Why is this done? Because the constitution is avowedly against the official worship of actual saints. So instead you've made your own. It's understandable, but it's also kind of poisonous to your political culture.

Also from an American perspective, why should anyone care what a foreigner thinks about the system?

Your own country would not exist if it was not for foreigners. Foreigners made up many of the people that wrote your constitution, including people like James Wilson. They are often interested in America's best interest because they see it as a way to perfect social and economic models without some of the baggage we have in the Old World.

It is hard to argue that that it has not worked well, America is a very powerful successful country is it not?

Your country has prospered mainly because the ambitious second-born sons of the world went there, shot up the natives, and took a largely unmolested area of land the size of most of Europe for themselves as a blank canvas to paint with the absolute newest agricultural and industrial methods.

That isn't to do with the constitution, really, it's down to the material conditions of the land.

[Annorax]

Please enlighten me to what myths that might be.

The whole thing where people try to invoke the Founding Fathers on various things like it actually matters. You have no doubt seen or heard it done plenty of times.

Basically "what would Jesus do" but with Thomas Jefferson or Washington, or whoever else.

Why is this done? Because the constitution is avowedly against the official worship of actual saints. So instead you've made your own. It's understandable, but it's also kind of poisonous to your political culture.

Also from an American perspective, why should anyone care what a foreigner thinks about the system?

Your own country would not exist if it was not for foreigners. Foreigners made up many of the people that wrote your constitution, including people like James Wilson. They are often interested in America's best interest because they see it as a way to perfect social and economic models without some of the baggage we have in the Old World.

It is hard to argue that that it has not worked well, America is a very powerful successful country is it not?

Your country has prospered mainly because the ambitious second-born sons of the world went there, shot up the natives, and took a largely unmolested area of land the size of most of Europe for themselves as a blank canvas to paint with the absolute newest agricultural and industrial methods.

That isn't to do with the constitution, really, it's down to the material conditions of the land.

I don't think anyone in the U.S. thinks of the founding members of the country as saints. They are referenced because they created the country and it would not exist if it was not for them. England keeps its monarchy, America keeps Washington and its founders.

Foreigners do not make up America, immigrants do.

I take your last statement as confirmation that America is a powerful and successful country. All countries had to "shoot up" natives to become a country at some point, America is no exception.

[Freefall11111]

Shall not be infringed does not need to be "interpreted".

Oh, well, in that case we better have you sent to teach the Supreme Court since you apparently know better.

[Annorax]

Shall not be infringed does not need to be "interpreted".

Oh, well, in that case we better have you sent to teach the Supreme Court since you apparently know better.

The Supreme Court has never differed from what I stated above, if they have please show me in what case.

[Imperializt Russia]

Oh, well, in that case we better have you sent to teach the Supreme Court since you apparently know better.

The Supreme Court has never differed from what I stated above, if they have please show me in what case.

And yet, while declaring some gun control measures as unconstitutional, they've upheld billions of others.

If you believe "'shall not be infringed' cannot be interpreted", then clearly SCOTUS doesn't agree with you.

[Neu Leonstein]

Lets assume that it is about the political aspect as you said. Armed citizens preventing tyranny, and the founding fathers disliking standing professional armies ( they did not the army is explicitly limited to two years of funding at a time for that reason). So you have the right now to own a weapon for militia service, but you can't practice with it as a hobby ( I assume you meant target shooting there), can't keep it in your home for self defense(community storage), and you can't hunt with it to gain practice on a moving target.

Those sound like very good way to ensure you can not exercise the duties of the militia without the govnerment actually banning the militia. We actually run into a similar issue on speech. The core purpose of speech is for political discourse. But if the govnerment can outlaw gossiping about a govnerment official, hate speech, or other non political speech, political speech could be very strongly chilled.

That's why I believe the supreme court was right in saying the 2nd amendment is a personal right, and the right means firearms may be stored and used for any lawful purpose including self defense, hunting, and target shooting.

Well, let's leave aside all the ways in which military reserves in various places (like Israel or Switzerland) seem to be be able to function with military guns kept in peoples' homes at the same time as other people are restricted from ownership to a greater degree than in the US. Then that still leaves a separation of powers argument. If you believe that rules and laws can be sufficient to keep the executive from overstepping its bounds with respect to the powers it has relative to other branches of government, then there is nothing standing in the way of making this militia a separate branch of the government. In that case you could have the militia centrally storing weapons, regulating training and access and so on. If the government were to infringe of the rights of this militia organisation, then this would be a breach no less than if it were to infringe on the rights of Congress or the Supreme Court.

Really, if you were concerned with having an effective, militarily or politically useful militia, then it makes no sense whatsoever to just allow everyone to have guns and hope that those people get organised when required. It would make far more sense to have some sort of organising body in place.

[United States of Atheism]

What is the point of a gun other than shooting things? Of course, assault weapons should be banned, it is common sense.

[Spirit of Hope]

What is the point of a gun other than shooting things? Of course, assault weapons should be banned, it is common sense.

Please define for me what an assault weapon is.

Military style semi autos represent less than 10% of all gun crimes, yet they are some of the most popular firearms for civilians. Who use them for shooting things like cans, metal plate, clay disks, and paper. From which they derive much enjoyment. They also occasionally use these firearms to protect them selves and get meat for them to eat.

[United States of Atheism]

What is the point of a gun other than shooting things? Of course, assault weapons should be banned, it is common sense.

Please define for me what an assault weapon is.

Military style semi autos represent less than 10% of all gun crimes, yet they are some of the most popular firearms for civilians. Who use them for shooting things like cans, metal plate, clay disks, and paper. From which they derive much enjoyment. They also occasionally use these firearms to protect them selves and get meat for them to eat.

Assault weapon is defined as: "Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud." I would be happy for a blanket ban on firearms to the civilians population if they do not have a background check, have a licence and pass psychological tests.

I will say this, if you are to defend yourself with a gun, it will likely the thug will also have a gun and will pull the gun first on you sir because they would be the aggressor. The gun is meaningless if that happens. Having no gun laws just gives thugs guns more easily.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I'm starting to wonder if the Founding Fathers knew how much people would wank on that one particular segment of the Constitution.

It's like, guys, we get it. You want to have assault rifles for some inexplicable reason. People want to not be shot to death. Let's make a fucking compromise here.

Obama doesn't want your guns. Lawmakers don't want to disarm your for the new PC Shadow Government.

People want to not be dead. People want their kids to not be dead.

I think gun-owners can live with not having drum magazines and M4A1 Assault Rifles.

I know I get along just fine without them.

Banning assault weapons isn't the fix.

The universal background checks, and that proposed tax on ammunition sounds fine.

Or, higher taxes on fully automatic rifles.

Universal Background checks could work, if non-FFLs are given free access to NICS. NICS also needs to be fixed for accuracy, reporting, and to reduce delays.

An increase in the existing excise tax (11%) on ammunition MIGHT be ok, as long as it isn't a punitive amount.

Full auto/select fire weapons aren't an issue, why do we need to raise the $200 NFA tax on it?

[Gun Manufacturers]

There should just be a serious background check for everyone who ever attempts to purchase a firearm, plus more severe punishments for illegal gun-ownership.

I have no problem with improving the accuracy and reporting of NICS, and increasing punishments for convicts/criminals who possess/use firearms.

[Spirit of Hope]

Please define for me what an assault weapon is.

Military style semi autos represent less than 10% of all gun crimes, yet they are some of the most popular firearms for civilians. Who use them for shooting things like cans, metal plate, clay disks, and paper. From which they derive much enjoyment. They also occasionally use these firearms to protect them selves and get meat for them to eat.

Assault weapon is defined as: "Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud." I would be happy for a blanket ban on firearms to the civilians population if they do not have a background check, have a licence and pass psychological tests.

I will say this, if you are to defend yourself with a gun, it will likely the thug will also have a gun and will pull the gun first on you sir because they would be the aggressor. The gun is meaningless if that happens. Having no gun laws just gives thugs guns more easily.

First I would like to note the latest mass shooter had a background check, a license, and had passed a psychological test.

As you may note from the definition of assault weapon it is rather nonsensical, defining a gun by mostly cosmetic features, such as pistol grips, flash suppressors and barrel shrouds. Plus as I already noted military style semi autos represent a minority of crime.

I happily support an expansion of the current background check rules, let make NICS publicly open and require it's use in all sales.

A license makes little sense, accidents account for a small portion of gun deaths and injuries. The only purpose it would really serve would be to add more steps to getting a gun, making it harder for little direct gain.

Psychological tests are much the same, only a tiny percentage of crime is committed by those with a mental illness, and it isn't always something that is easy to detect. Again it would largely serve to simply complicate getting a gun with little direct decrease in crime.

As to your self defense point, it is absurd. First humans aren't the only thing to defend against, some animals can be quite dangerous on their own. Secondly not all criminals use guns, only about 10% of non fatal violent crime involves a gun. Third a gun is not meaningless in self defense just because the criminal has one, it depends on a number of factors. Forth we have gun laws, designed to keep criminals from getting guns.