Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[CBWx2]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

[spartan]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Rifles, which is the category that incudes "Assault Rfiles" are responsible for < 3% of murders. Banning them would achieve what?

[Pewter Pirate]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Uh....actually there is nor right to drive a car.  All 50 states recognize driving as a privilege not a right.  Your logic is flawed.  Bearing arms is a right owned by the citizens.  The Constitution does not restrict which arms you cam bear, therefore there is no right for Congress to ban them.  The Constitution is a limit on government rights, not citizen rights.  Read the 9th and 10th amendments, this will help you understand state v.  federal power.

[Dolorous Jason]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Rifles, which is the category that incudes "Assault Rfiles" are responsible for < 3% of murders. Banning them would achieve what?

It would achieve a foothold for leftists to take away the rest of the guns once they can show that "more needs to be done to "protect" us " .

[Dolorous Jason]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Uh....actually there is nor right to drive a car.  All 50 states recognize driving as a privilege not a right.  Your logic is flawed.  Bearing arms is a right owned by the citizens.  The Constitution does not restrict which arms you cam bear, therefore there is no right for Congress to ban them.  The Constitution is a limit on government rights, not citizen rights.  Read the 9th and 10th amendments, this will help you understand state v.  federal power.

Oh trust me , nothing will help him understand...

[dalbuc]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Rifles, which is the category that incudes "Assault Rfiles" are responsible for < 3% of murders. Banning them would achieve what?

It would achieve a foothold for leftists to take away the rest of the guns once they can show that "more needs to be done to "protect" us " .

Pretty much, if guns that kill hundreds every year are "dangerous" why not handguns that kill thousands? I mean who hunts with those? You can better use a shotgun for home defense. Maybe the many rounds clips in semi-autos need to be banned, heck 6 rounds in a revolver might be too much so why not limit us to single shot derringers? The logic on scary looking rifles (I'm no longer using the term assault rifle) is so broad that it allows removal of darn near any gun.

[CBWx2]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Rifles, which is the category that incudes "Assault Rfiles" are responsible for < 3% of murders. Banning them would achieve what?

Hard to say, but what's evident is that states that have weapons restrictions and/or bans in effect have lower murder rates on average than states that do not, so perhaps it's all those states that ban certain types of semi-automatic rifles that help bring that percentage down.

[VinBucFan]

[quote author=VinBucFan link=topic=1303027.msg1861800#msg1861800 date=


So Scalia did what he is want to do and he (and the majority) dissected the phrase "right to bear arms" by starting with "arms" and saying that "arms" applied then and through history to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity  I didn't say ONLY and, more importantly, the Court did not say ONLY because they didn't need to.  All the Court was trying to do (because Scalia is an ORIGINALIST) was show that there was an actual historical underpinning for the Court's 2008 interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The very paragraph I quoted acknowledges at there were other interpretations of the word, but the Court found the "arms" = "non-military" the most compelling definition.

You are again misreading the Heller decision.  The ruling was not about military use at all but rather "in common use for lawful purposes".. 
[/quote]

LOL.  You cant discuss one without the other because the Court was comparing the two.  That's like saying a discussion comparing Deocrats to Republicans is not about Democrats, it makes no sense.  In essence, you are now just coming back to agreeing with the point I made. I guess you re-read it and realized I was not misreading it.  THE POINT was precisely the point you are making now and that is that the Court drew a distinction between weapons "in common use for a lawful purpose"  and military weapons.

Geez, glad we cleared that up . . . .

As to the rest, "lawful" doesnt mean that they arent used to kill much so your comments about assault rifles are misplaced.  Assault rifles are actually marketed as "military like" and they don't serve a uniquely lawful purpose, such as hunting or self-defense (like a handgun in the home, which is what Heller was about).  Most assault-rifles are purchased by enthusiasts.  Not all, but most.  Being an enthusiast maybe lawful, but the purpose is not so significant (target practice v self-defense) particularly when compared to the risk, that it will present much of an argument against regulation.  As you recall, "assault weapons" were banned already (at least in name), the case for not banning them again didnt get stronger after Newtown  (and will get even weaker after the next copy cat crime)

[Chief Joseph]

Lunch, a beer or two and with five fingers tied behind my back . . .  the self-nominated spokesmen for the pro-gun crowd have been vanquished, one proven to be a coward, the other two proven unable formulate even a single substantive argument against reasonable restrictions on guns.

And in case any of you peons have forgot, the mighty Vin has vanquished you while drinking beer with one hand tied behind his back. Do not even try to argue any more, victory has been declared.

[CBWx2]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Uh....actually there is nor right to drive a car.  All 50 states recognize driving as a privilege not a right.  Your logic is flawed. Bearing arms is a right owned by the citizens.  The Constitution does not restrict which arms you cam bear, therefore there is no right for Congress to ban them.

My logic isn't flawed in the least. You just fail to see a tangible correlation because you don't want to. No where in my statement did I say driving a car was a right, and that's neither here nor there in regards to the point. Let me explain.

A Formula-1 racing car is a type of car. Banning this certain type or classification of car does not hinder one from being able to drive a car, it simply hinders one from being able to drive that kind of car. You can still drive a Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Honda, etc. to get you from point A to point B.

The same goes for weapons bans. I've emboldened the segment of your response that is the exact reason I used my car analogy. The court has ruled time and time again that the banning of certain types or classifications of arms is not an infringement on the right to bear arms, because you can still exercise that right even if you can't bear the specific arms that are banned, just as you can still drive a car even if you can't drive a Formula 1 car.

The Constitution is a limit on government rights, not citizen rights.  Read the 9th and 10th amendments, this will help you understand state v.  federal power.

I am well aware of what they are. What's less apparent, is what either of them have to do with the 2nd amendment debate? Your argument is that since the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant Congress the power to ban semi-automatic assault rifles, then they can't. That's absurd.

There are numerous examples of rights granted in the Constitution that have been subsequently limited that do not violate the nature of the document. For example, making it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not an infringement on the 1st amendment. The First Amendment also does not expressly protect individuals from slander or libel, yet both are deemed constitutionally sound limits on speech.

There is also a part of the 10th Amendment that you seem to be missing the meaning of...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That last part is always a sticking point for you strict constructionists, as you often times fail to even address that it's there. What that means is that the Constitution gives the people the right to decide, by way of majority rule, what laws can be made as long as they are not in conflict with the rights enumerated in the Constitution. If the majority of the populace supports an assault weapons ban, then that ban is constitutional by authority of the 10th amendment.

[olafberserker]

and another one gets sucked in .......

[John Galt?]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Rifles, which is the category that incudes "Assault Rfiles" are responsible for < 3% of murders. Banning them would achieve what?

Hard to say, but what's evident is that states that have weapons restrictions and/or bans in effect have lower murder rates on average than states that do not, so perhaps it's all those states that ban certain types of semi-automatic rifles that help bring that percentage down.

Sorry but that is clearly NOT evident. The (by far) highest firearm death rate is DC which has strict gun laws. DC is almost TRIPLE the National average. Florida, Texas, both Dakotas are below the National average. Hawaii has the lowest rate and has no assault bans or NFA laws. Louisiana does restrict NFA weapons and is well above average. Without spending a few hours doing regression analysis I just don't see ANY correlation between state gun bans and homicide rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

[dalbuc]

LOL.  You cant discuss one without the other because the Court was comparing the two.  That's like saying a discussion comparing Deocrats to Republicans is not about Democrats, it makes no sense.  In essence, you are now just coming back to agreeing with the point I made. I guess you re-read it and realized I was not misreading it.  THE POINT was precisely the point you are making now and that is that the Court drew a distinction between weapons "in common use for a lawful purpose"  and military weapons.

Geez, glad we cleared that up . . . .

As to the rest, "lawful" doesnt mean that they arent used to kill much so your comments about assault rifles are misplaced.  Assault rifles are actually marketed as "military like" and they don't serve a uniquely lawful purpose, such as hunting or self-defense (like a handgun in the home, which is what Heller was about).  Most assault-rifles are purchased by enthusiasts.  Not all, but most.  Being an enthusiast maybe lawful, but the purpose is not so significant (target practice v self-defense) particularly when compared to the risk, that it will present much of an argument against regulation.  As you recall, "assault weapons" were banned already (at least in name), the case for not banning them again didnt get stronger after Newtown  (and will get even weaker after the next copy cat crime)

No they never compared those. The point in heller was to say that nothing in it overruled the ban on individuals having automatic weapons or flak cannon. You continue to call the scary looking rifle a military weapon when it clearly isn't. That section of Heller has zero application. Using your reading Heller could outlaw any weapon that resembled a military firearm - example the military uses clip fed, semi-automatic rifles with scopes that lack pistol grips. That covers a whole mess of hunting rifles as well.

How do assault rifles not serve a "uniquely lawful" purpose. Your logic here is awful. If they aren't used in crimes at as high a rate as other weapons then they clearly serve other lawful uses. They are good for self defense, I know target shooters who use them among many other weapons. When you talk about risk the fact that handguns are used in 17-19x as many crimes certainly shows that "risk" isn't huge or at least if risk is your criteria your criteria can fit any gun.

[spartan]

The Military use 9mm hand guns.

If Heller was saying that "military style" weapons are not subject to the 2nd Amendment, how could they then go on to say a hand gun ban was unconstitutional?

[Pewter Pirate]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

It isn't. And these morons suggesting that not opposing a semi-assault weapon ban is equivalent to giving up your rights are just using hyperbole to support a bogus claim. Weapons bans don't infringe on the right to bear arms no more than banning Formula-1 racing cars on city streets is an infringement on your ability to drive a car.

Uh....actually there is nor right to drive a car.  All 50 states recognize driving as a privilege not a right.  Your logic is flawed. Bearing arms is a right owned by the citizens.  The Constitution does not restrict which arms you cam bear, therefore there is no right for Congress to ban them.

My logic isn't flawed in the least. You just fail to see a tangible correlation because you don't want to. No where in my statement did I say driving a car was a right, and that's neither here nor there in regards to the point. Let me explain.

A Formula-1 racing car is a type of car. Banning this certain type or classification of car does not hinder one from being able to drive a car, it simply hinders one from being able to drive that kind of car. You can still drive a Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Honda, etc. to get you from point A to point B.

The same goes for weapons bans. I've emboldened the segment of your response that is the exact reason I used my car analogy. The court has ruled time and time again that the banning of certain types or classifications of arms is not an infringement on the right to bear arms, because you can still exercise that right even if you can't bear the specific arms that are banned, just as you can still drive a car even if you can't drive a Formula 1 car.

The Constitution is a limit on government rights, not citizen rights.  Read the 9th and 10th amendments, this will help you understand state v.  federal power.

I am well aware of what they are. What's less apparent, is what either of them have to do with the 2nd amendment debate? Your argument is that since the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant Congress the power to ban semi-automatic assault rifles, then they can't. That's absurd.

There are numerous examples of rights granted in the Constitution that have been subsequently limited that do not violate the nature of the document. For example, making it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not an infringement on the 1st amendment. The First Amendment also does not expressly protect individuals from slander or libel, yet both are deemed constitutionally sound limits on speech.

There is also a part of the 10th Amendment that you seem to be missing the meaning of...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That last part is always a sticking point for you strict constructionists, as you often times fail to even address that it's there. What that means is that the Constitution gives the people the right to decide, by way of majority rule, what laws can be made as long as they are not in conflict with the rights enumerated in the Constitution. If the majority of the populace supports an assault weapons ban, then that ban is constitutional by authority of the 10th amendment.

You are correct, it does say people.  It means if a power is not delegated to Congress, the states and people are not  restricted, and have the power.  It restricts federal power, and leaves it with the citizens.  The 2nd amendment addresses the right to bear arms.  There is now power to override other than by Constitutional amendment, which can be done by congress or the states.   It does not create a democracy.  There is a way to amend the Constitution by the people through the states.  We are not a democracy, and do not have majority rule.  We are a Representative Republic made up of 50 states.  It is difficult to debate you, if you believe that we are a majority rule democracy.   The The assault ban is coming from Congress, not the people.  The people have not amended the Constitution.  This is not difficult to understand.