Scalia's Supreme Court accepted Assault Weapons Ban

...and the courts keep getting it wrong because the 2nd Amendment specifically says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

every right can be restricted, if the restriction serves a legitimate governmental interest. The second A is no different.

 

When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the military had the same weapons as did the civilians.

 

awesome. Things are much different now. Civilians should not be allowed to own RPG's, Nukes, or fighter planes. Thus, as I said, every right can be restricted, if the restriction serves a legitimate governmental interest. The second A is no different.

 

That's irrelevant.

When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, there existed smooth bore pistols, muskets, Kentucky long rifles, grenades, mortars, cannons, and ships ladened with cannons, yet the founders didn't put any restrictions in the 2nd Amendment.

And 70 years before the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the Puckle gun was invented and was a Gatling gun with removable drum magazines. The Puckle gun was referred to as a "machine gun" in a 1722 shipping manifest...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

And civilians can and do own RPG's, Nukes, or fighter planes today.

 

Lol, it's constitutional law.

already said how awesome that is. Times are different now.

 

And such is not being discussed. The statement on the part of yourself was that limits on which firearms can be possessed is not an infringement. In Heller the united state supreme court stated that such is indeed an infringement, because the district of columbia prohibited all handgun ownership while leaving rifles and shotguns legal to own. The united state supreme court stated that such was not good enough, and overturned the complete handgun prohibition on the grounds of being unconstitutional.

There is no legal basis for restricting the legal ownership of firearms that are in common use. It is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty to continue claiming to the contrary.

 

Such are not arms under the second amendment, therefore any discussion pertaining to them is off topic and irrelevant.

 

And pray tell exactly what is the legitimate government interest that justifies any of the firearm-related restrictions currently in place? How are the firearm-related restrictions narrowly tailored in carrying out that one and only specific government interest? How are the firearm-related restrictions in place regarded as the least restrictive approach possible of achieving that government interest?

Explain such.

 

Minus the nukes (I forgot to omit that from the copy and paste).

But yes, civilians can and do own machine guns, RPG's, tanks, fighter jets, etc.

 

another fib-the NRA opposes crap that harasses honest people and doesn't target criminals-like waiting periods and magazine limits. The NRA supports laws that increase the punishment on violent criminals who use firearms.

 

you apparently don't understand the second amendment. the arms mentioned are personal weapons. BTW what part of the constitution properly allows the federal government to ban RPGs.

 

you forget one thing

AND IF THE GOVERNMENT IN QUESTION has been delegated the power to do so

 

Another post that made no sense.

That kind of reasoning is used in New York City and Los Angeles County to prevent citizens from having concealed carry and small revolvers for personal defense.

What legitimate Government interests are served by preventing or prohibiting personal defense ?

Argument total fail.

 

magazine limits affect anyone who owns or wants a gun

 

Nope it sure does not.
Lots of original capacity magazines out there, or can be easily modified.

 

if they are suddenly illegal to purchase, that makes it a lot more difficult to acquire.

for everyone.

this isn't rocket science, buddy.

 

Nope.
People still aquire Arms illegally, and those persons prohibited from owning firearms are still prohibited from ownership, no matter what.
Magazine limits accomplish no good.

 

Quantify "a lot more difficult". Heroin is made from a plant that doesn't even grow in mass quantities in this hemisphere. Has making it a "lot more difficult to buy" kept anyone who wants it from getting it?

 

so you think people have a biochemical addiction to high capacity magazines?

they go into physical and emotional withdrawal symptoms if they cant be in their presence?

are there any documented cases of folks having suicidal thoughts due to them only being able to use a 10-round magazine?

LOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I suspect the Supreme Court would uphold virtually any weapons ban. They are rich, living in guarded gated communities, and have massive armed protection for themselves at work. If anyone threatens any of them, the FBI would send out SWAT and throw that person in prison. So what do they care about us lowly peasants? They're safe.

 

thats cause they know the States have some authority to regulate guns, as per the US Constitution and the Heller decision.

 

well not really-criminals cannot own a gun so their legal rights don't change at all with a magazine limit. Mag limits have direct impact on harassing honest gun owners and only a speculative and indirect impact on criminals who already ignore gun laws before they worry about magazines.

now tell me Ron-if the government can limit magazines and you claim that doesn't violate the second amendment, then what you really believe the government can ban anything more than a one shot weapon and not violate YOUR version of the second amendment

 

like weed? I don't know if or where you went to college but at every Ivy league university, its easy to get.

 

so tell us Ron, how does Heller support banning guns that are in common use and are not unusually dangerous

or ban 11 round magazines given 17, 20 and 30 round magazine guns are in common use and not unusually dangerous

have you ever been able to understand what a negative restriction on government is supposed to mean?