Picture of Assault Weapon before and after the ban?

[TweetyBird]

Laz it isn't about reading every gun magazine published, going to every gun show, or knowing all the intricacies of every gun. And thats what you are trying to make it about.

Its a legal and social question. You spew off a few gun terms and then follow with some hyperbole "Hitler and Stalin did it."

I guess thats more fun to say than Norway has strict gun registration laws. People still have a lot of guns there, so nobody is grabbing their guns.

Or perhaps Canada has no constitutional guarantee to carry a gun, but they've remained a free nation. And Swedin - etc etc.

Its a sociological and legal issue - not a gun bolt issue.
So when it comes down the real issue (legal and social) you tend to be a lot less technical and start spewing about Hitler.

[lazs2]

tweety... the entire thread is about assault weapons and why they were banned.

Take the emotion out of it and look at the reality...  There is no functional difference between pre and post ban firearms.  The reason that the ban was put in place had no basis in good logical thinking and was based on ignorance of firearms and their affect on society.

follow so far?   so... rather than being an exercise in technical knowledge on the one hand and a moral correctness on the other....

it was a case of a useless "feel good" law passed by incramentalists who know nothing of the subject they are passing bills against.  

Do you not agree that before you pass legeslation banning something that you should know what the effect of the ban will be and what you are banning and why?

What is your reason for supporting the now defunct assault weapon ban (assuming you support it)?  What would be the point of such a ban?

lazs

[Terror]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
The second amendment was written to insure a malitia, not to insure everyone could own a gun - in fact it doesn't mention a gun. What if we decide guns aren't strong enough? Can we bare tanks?

The second amendment is as such: 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 right of the people to keep and bear arms".  The word "people" is used throughout the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and is generally interpreted as meaning the general population.  Which means it applies to all individuals no matter their occupation or standing.  Why should the Second Amendment be interpreted any differently?  The Amendment does not say that only the militia can bear arms.  It says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" and uses a justification that a civilian militia can and will be used from the armed population if needed to ensure a free state.

Terror

[Terror]

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>the militia was defined as any able bodied man.<<

What is a "WELL REGULATED" militia defined as? Because thats what the ammendment states - a militia subject to *regulations* and it should be "well regulated' which implies someone must do the regulating - who?

The "well regulated militia" portion of the amendment is a justification for why the people have the right to keep and bear arms.  Not a limit to when/who/where an individual can keep or bear arms.

Terror

[lazs2]

exactly terror... if we ever need a militia... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The right means.... the right (not privilidge) and the people means... the people.   Arms are considered any weapons that can be carried on the person.

They could have left out the militia part but they didn't...  It was the justification.   When there is no more tyranny or crime or bad people in the world then there will be no need for a militia but until then....

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I would love it all out in the open and decided by the supreme court..  I would allow that local ordinances could regulate the bearing of arms in city limits but not the keeping of them.

lazs

[Rino]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Widewing. Was that gun covered under "the Ban"?

     It was mentioned in the People's Republik of NJ gun laws as
being banned.  Unfortunately for us, Dred, the gun ban still exists.

[Rino]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Widewing. Was that gun covered under "the Ban"?

     It was mentioned in the People's Republik of NJ gun laws as
being banned.  Unfortunately for us, Dred, the gun ban still exists.