There are no bans in place for silencers, sawed off shotguns, shotguns with the plugs removed, etc.

Why would you comment on a topic that you know nothing about?

---

ps - Jason Marcel: It's the Assault Weapons Ban - not the Automatic Weapons Ban.

How can people step up to a debate on a topic where they are so woefully ignorant of the facts about that subject?

__________________
"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron

Guess that whole "A well regulated Militia" thing is totally absent in your mind, eh?

The Supreme Court just ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right that it not connected in any way to service or membership in a Militia.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

And they ruled in 1856 that Dred Scott was property.

I am the well regulated militia.

__________________
"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron

Totally irrelevant, but noted.

The problem with the whole Militia argument is that it requires the specific term "right of the People" to mean one thing in the First and Fourth Amendments, but something different in the Second Amendment.

That's illogical, and contradictory to the most basic rules of legal interpretation.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

It's totally relevant, since your argument is basically that courts are not capable of error. That if a court says it is the case, then it is the case.

As for the argument being contradictory, it's not the least. Context is an important part of the meaning of individual words in a sentence. Furthermore, if the purpose was to refer to an individual right, why even mention militia service? That is what is illogical.

Sure, if "Joe Six Pack" applies for a Class III license , and he is backround checked and approved, he damn sure has the right to own a fully auto weapon.

__________________
Mr. Obama, please release the UFO files!

Not necessarily. You're referring, I believe, to the argument that the National Guard meets the requirement for a well-regulated militia, so that the availability of firearms in the Guard armories fulfills this "right of the People."

However, one can set that aside, recognize that in the original conception the 2A did indeed refer to an individual right, and at the same time also recognize that it had everything to do with the militia. That's why those words are included.

The original conception of the militia was a people's army consisting of every able-bodied adult male. The Guard does not meet that description, being more of a regular army reserve than anything else. (Except that a state can call it out in cases of insurrection and so on. So it's a state regular army that can be federalized, rather than a state militia that can be federalized.) Included in this conception of the militia as a people's army is the right of individual members of the militia to be armed.

Those modifying words in the 2A never did turn it from an individual into a collective right, but nevertheless they are important; they are not just fluff, and they do modify the meaning. What the court has done is to strike them from the Constitution, leaving only the operative words without the modifying ones, and adding new modifiers which permit certain non-extreme forms of gun control, at least some of which would not be permissible if the 2A still had its original form, including the modifying language. (Others might be, though. I think things like registration, concealed carry restrictions, and waiting periods and background checks might not be a problem. Bans on military weapons, though, most certainly would.)

The Second Amendment, as written, is an anachronism. The U.S. has not used a militia form of national defense since the end of the Civil War. That change was made, in fact, because of the Civil War, which was possible because the seceding states were able to call up their militias and turn them into Confederate armies. The legally right approach, in my opinion, would be to recognize this, and amend the Constitution to get rid of the damned thing. What the court has done instead is to neuter it into something much less dangerous and potentially upsetting to public order.

As I said, their opinion counts and mine doesn't. But let's not fool ourselves about what that opinion does.

You are mistaken.

Joe Sixpack already had the right to own full auto weapons.

The background check is to insure he hasn't done anything that would negate that right.

If you are a law-abiding citizen, it is fairly easy to qualify for a class III license, an aow permit, a concealed carry permit, an open carry license or even an ffl.

The tax stamps aren't cheap though...

__________________
"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron

If it were to apply only to the militia, why not say "the right of the militia....".

The term "the right of the People" only ever means an individual rights in it's other uses in the Constitution.

It can't mean one thing, then change meaning, then change back. That is completely inconsistent with even the most basic rules of legal interpretation.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

What's illogical is your reasoning.

Here's why... Right after the Constitution was completed and the country was just starting into it's first year, there were no calls, mandates, etc. by the federal government to go around and confiscate all guns from the people who weren't in a militia.

This one simple fact totally smashes arguments of the gun control crowd that the right to possess guns under the 2A was meant for people in a militia.

Case closed.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

Why should his rights be infringed with a forced background check and license application?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

They shouldn't be, and Heller actually opens the door to eliminate that requirement.

Remember, Heller was just about DC's law - not every other law in the US. It DOES establish a VERY important precedent though, and that precedent is being used as we speak to bring down other unconstitutional laws.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

That does not smash the argument at all. There is not a right to eat cream cheese in the Constitution. That the government doesn't go around taking everyone's bagels doesn't imply that a right to eat cream cheese exists.