Since all the PC folks are on this 'place'...

[Bob Gutermuth]

There were assualt rifles at the time the country was founded, they were called muskets, Penna. Rifles, Kentucky Rifles or Brown Bess. The same rifle that put game on the table was used to keep marauding indians, Lobster Backs(RedCoats and hungry bears at bay.

There never has been a Constitutional right to own landmines live hand grenades etc. Machine guns have been severly restricted since the National Firearms act of 36 was passed. It IS legal to own one but there is the little matter of an ATF permit. For the record, no lawfully owned machine gun has ever been used in a crime by the lawful owner. The price of such weapons is far beyond the means of most gun owners, including me!

[Joe S.]

There were assualt rifles at the time the country was founded, they were called muskets, Penna. Rifles, Kentucky Rifles or Brown Bess. The same rifle that put game on the table was used to keep marauding indians, Lobster Backs(RedCoats and hungry bears at bay.

There never has been a Constitutional right to own landmines live hand grenades etc. Machine guns have been severly restricted since the National Firearms act of 36 was passed. It IS legal to own one but there is the little matter of an ATF permit. For the record, no lawfully owned machine gun has ever been used in a crime by the lawful owner. The price of such weapons is far beyond the means of most gun owners, including me!

The person using the assault rifle of the time had a rate of fire, under optimal conditions, of 3 or 4 rounds per minute. The range of weapon was about 200 yards and the effective range being closer to 60 yards.

A person using, for example, a modern day assault rifle such as an M-16A2 has a rate of fire of 45 rounds per minute in the semi-automatic mode. The maximum range of the weapon is about 1100 yards and the effective range being closer to 600 yards.

The assault rifles of today are not routinely used for any of the purposes you have outlined.

Bit of a difference, wouldn't you agree Bob?

Non-Machine Gun Owning Regards,

Joe S.

[John Kelder]

And they understood muskets and cannons, spears and arrows, but they had no concept of machine guns, assault rifles, land mines, hand grenades, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

Does the 2nd Amendment grant an absolute right????....or a right with certain governmental and/or societal restrictions?

Does "the right to bear arms" have no restriction, of any kind?

When does one's right to self protection become a detriment to society?

Shall not be infringed means no government or societal restrictions .Or is there another meaning to "infringed" ?
Self protection becomes a detriment to society when it is your part of society(ie.- your family) that needs protection and you or they can't protect themselves because your second amendment rights at some point were infringed .

[Joe S.]

Shall not be infringed means no government or societal restrictions.Or is there another meaning to "infringed" ?
Self protection becomes a detriment to society when it is your part of society(ie.- your family) that needs protection and you or they can't protect themselves because your second amendment rights at some point were infringed .

So, by your definition, we should all be free to own fully automatic weapons or any other type of weapon we want without restriction. Is that correct?

Regards,

Joe S.

[Juli H]

are you talking weapons or firearms Joe?

Juli

[Juli H]

and to add to my little blurb.....


.....please explain/defend this quote as it pertains to your above statement....

That said, it seems the continuing to seek to deny rights afforded by the CONSTITUTION would be in violation of the CONSTITUTION and is an attempt to destroy that which is the cornerstone of our great nation.


Joe S.

[Joe S.]

are you talking weapons or firearms Joe?

Juli

Same Same Regards,

Joe S.

[John Kelder]

So, by your definition, we should all be free to own fully automatic weapons or any other type of weapon we want without restriction. Is that correct?

Regards,

Joe S.

No Joe ,
Not all , but surely , most of us should be allowed to keep and bear arms , including full auto .For the most part , we , as a society are law abiding citizens .What have you or I done to prevent us from owning a full auto M-16 ? Nothing here I know of .
Patriot missles ,LAAW rockets , Bazookas and such Artillery do not fall under the 2nd . Amendment. IMHO .Violent felons , mentally impaired ,domestic violence , minors ,etc.would also be disallowed . IMHO .
is this an infringement ? No ,common sense . Due to the situation of the individual , some rights are forfeited , as upheld by the scotus .

[Joe S.]

and to add to my little blurb.....


.....please explain/defend this quote as it pertains to your above statement....

I'm not sure what you want.

Please restate it for me.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.

[YardleyLabs]

Shall not be infringed means no government or societal restrictions .Or is there another meaning to "infringed" ?
Self protection becomes a detriment to society when it is your part of society(ie.- your family) that needs protection and you or they can't protect themselves because your second amendment rights at some point were infringed .

Actually, as favorable as it was from the perspective of gun owners and wannabe owners, the most recent Supreme Court ruling said that it was entirely appropriate for government to impose "reasonable restrictions on firearms as long as those restrictions do not constitute an out right ban on rifles, shotguns or pistols. There will be lots of future litigation to define the meaning of "reasonable," but it is likely that a restriction, for example, on magazine size would be considered to be completely reasonable.

With respect to your rhetorical question concerning the clarity of "the right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed", the lack of clarity concerns two parts of the amendment. First, what is the relationship of the need for a "well regulated militia" and the "right to bear arms" since both of these phrases are part of a single statement. Second, what in the minds of the authors was meant by the word "arms" and how might that term have evolved over time. The Supreme Court spent a lot of time trying to answer both of these questions and achieved very little consensus beyond having five justices agreeing that the DC statute went too far.

Interestingly, a government that restricted all weapons to a single shot might well garner the support of those justices that like to stick to the original meaning since there were no multi-shot weapons available at that time. Or are you one of those radicals that believe that the meaning of the Constitution might be subject to reinterpretation to reflect more modern technologies and developments.

Multi-shot gun owner regards,