Summations Only

You've got it backwards. Rights aren't determined by need.Rights are restricted by need. The question is why would we need to stop a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun.

Another word that can be defined multiple ways. Why didn't they say "own and bear"?

quote:

---

promote the general Welfare,

---

I dunno, they talked differnt back then. How could I even know that? Now all you have to do is show how stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun promotes the general Welfare.

Not quite correct, CS. The power to train, organize, etc. a constitutional 'Militia' is reserved to the states in Article I of the constitution.Yes, there can be other groups of citizens with guns, and they can call themselves a militia, or the minutemen, or the Klan if they want. But those are not the groups referered to as 'the Militia' in the constitution.The 2nd amendment does not create a Militia. The provisions for that are in the body of the constitution.

There's no such thing as "ammo for assault-type weapons" because there's no such thing as an "assault-type weapon" - any firearm can be used to assault someone - and they don't use special ammo..223 caliber, for instance, is a hunting round. 9mm Parabellum is a target-shooting round. Hollow-point bullets are meant for the range since they don't penetrate - but it's precisely because they don't penetrate, but deliver all of their kinetic energy to the target, that they can be so lethal. There's no such thing as a "safe" bullet to be shot with; there was nothing particularly lethal about the firearms used in any of these mass shootings beyond their high capacity magazines (the restriction of which I support, perhaps along with a California-style "bullet button" requirement than magazines be detatchable from semiautomatic weapons only by use of a special tool.)

That wouldn't be enough. The 2nd amendment expresses a limitation on Congressional power. So until the 2nd amendment is out of the way, there is no need to look to the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause.But absent the 2nd amendment, I think limitations on the fire rate and capacity are no brainers. Congressional action would be judged on a very liberal 'rational basis' which essential never results in a statute being overturned.

Indeed they won't get any shot off faster than a revolver; revolvers have the highest rate of fire of any firearm. All of the records for fastest rate of fire of conventional firearms (as distinguished from high-tech "caseless" autofire weapons) are set with revolvers.You seemingly know nothing about guns. "Semi-auto" doesn't refer to the number of rounds held in the firearm; it refers to the action of the firearm, and whether the weapon uses the recoil energy of the shot to cycle the action and load the next round. It's not a reference to how fast the weapon can be fired or how many rounds it can hold. You seemingly know nothing about guns. That's exactly wrong. The Bushmaster .223 is, of course, a variant of the AR-15 modular receiver concept; that design grew out of the AR-10, which was originally designed as a lightweight "survival rifle" - a modular weapon in a lightweight caliber that could be disassembled and stored as part of a survival kit. In other words it was a hunting weapon. The AR-15 variant adapted the technology to meet the requirements of the Army program to replace the M1 Garand, itself originally a hunting rifle chambered for .30-06.You seemingly know nothing about guns. The Bushmaster .223 is accurate to within 2" at 300 yards, using the right ammo, accessories, and barrel. Semiauto rifles are more accurate than bolt-action ones because the recoil energy is absorbed and used. And it's worth pointing out that almost all of the accessories that increase accuracy - optical scopes, energy-absorbing stocks, balancing counterweights - are precisely the accessories that make these weapons look "military." One is left with the impression that gun foes think that weapons would be safer if they were made more inaccurate.

Section 8:

quote:

---

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

​

...

​

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

​

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

---

To me, the militia means the individuals of The People who have the right to have arms. This is greater than the portion of them that will be called up and trained when the need arrises. When that happens, it'll be up to the States to get them organized and appoint officers. The groups refered to as 'the Militia' in the constitution will be compromised of The People, who as individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, because the security of the free stated relies on a well regulated militia, and a well regulated militia relies on the people having arms. I was replying to RAZD's comments on Article 1 Section 8, not the 2nd amendment.The 2nd Amendment prevents The People from being disarmed, because the security of the free state depends on it.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

My point exactly. Really? Have you heard of Newtown, CT?

Gee. We had a ban once. Seems they defined the term then.

Any ammunition designed to wound and kill humans.
The 5.56mm and the 7.62 variants and .50cal etc..
Do you think the above munitions are not designed for the sole purpose but to fire with rapid succession, and to inflict bodily damage to human targets? The .223 is based on the 5.56mm which was designed to be fired in the M16A1 assault rifle. It is the civilian version of the 5.56mm
The 5.56mm was the US answer to the 7.62 russian short which was designed to inflict wounds on the battle field and clogging up the enemies logistics with wounded. Not to mention the psycological impact of soldiers suffering wounds. The 5.56mm was also designed to reduce the weight of the ammo so a soldier could carry more. There is no such thing as a safe bullet is right. And if Fed law prevented the manufacture and ownership of these types of bullets by civilians we would see a reduction in the use of these types of arms being used in mass shootings.

Bullshit. Your point was that the amendment didn't mean for people to use their own guns because it said bear them, not own them. But it says keep them to, so you're just wrong. It doesn't have anything to do with people talking differently back then. Yeah, we have a real problem with how we treat, or don't treat, mental illness in this country.CT has some of the strictest gun control laws around. Obviously gun control laws don't prevent these trageties. Stopping a civilian from having a rapid-fire gun fails to promote the general Welfare. You're wrong again.

That stupid ban defined as assault weapons ones that had no business being called as such, and failed to define some that would have better met their goals if banned.It was stupidly based on asthetics by lawmakers who knew next to nothing about how guns work or what made them better for assault.It was an utter farce.

It didn't work with drugs, what makes you think it'll work with bullets? All the stuff you need to make your own bullets already exists and is in the hands of the people. There's nothing to stop the bullets from continuing to exist even thought they've been banned.