champu 1 #126 January 31, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOwning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid. Owning "a" weapon might be. Owning every type of weapon is not. Where in the Constitution does it say that? "keep and bear arms" not "keep and bear all arms" Which is why SCOTUS has upheld other restrictions of the 2nd amendment. Where does it say "only keep and bear the arms the government says you can keep and bear" The whole discussion of the constitutionality of the restriction or banning of particular types of weapons (as distinct from any discussion of how we might approach the problem of keeping any firearms away from those we agree should not have them) is begging the question. So far in all these threads we have, hopefully, seen that... 1) While firearms classified as assault weapons, both in the 1994 ban and the latest piece of legistlation from Feinstein, have been used in some recent high-profile shootings, they are a fraction of homicides involving rifles, which are a relatively small fraction (500-600 out of several thousand) of all firearm-related homicides, which are a fraction of all firearm related deaths. 2) The definitions of assault weapons in both the 1994 ban and the latest piece of legistlation from Feinstein are laregly cosmetic in nature, and have a focus on certain firearms based on their similar appearance to military firearms. There has not been evidence presenting showing the relationship of the features being banned and the firearms deadliness, nor propensity to be used in homicides. 3) The DHS has evaluated at least one such weapon (the most popular model) and found it to be suitable as a close-quarters personal defense weapon. An intruder breaking into a house while the homeowner is there can fairly be considered a "close-quarters personal defense" situation. 4) This whole federal AWB may, in fact, simply be a barginning chip (oh how those work out so well, see: sequestration) used by democrats to ensure some of the other proposed measures get through. So what's the point of arguing if an ineffective, poorly written, ill-conceived, barginning chip of a law would pass muster in the SCOTUS? It's a stupid law... it can be constitutional or not it's still a stupid law... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #127 February 1, 2013 Quote ....No...I never said anything of the sort. A) SCOTUS doesn't ban anything, they simply decide if laws (that ban things etc.) are constitutionally sound. B) They HAVE ruled SEVERAL times that WEAPONS restrictions of varying types are allowed under the constitution. Can you provide a link to all these times they have ruled on these restrictions? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bignugget 0 #128 February 2, 2013 Quote Quote ....No...I never said anything of the sort. A) SCOTUS doesn't ban anything, they simply decide if laws (that ban things etc.) are constitutionally sound. B) They HAVE ruled SEVERAL times that WEAPONS restrictions of varying types are allowed under the constitution. Can you provide a link to all these times they have ruled on these restrictions? While not all this should get you started: http://rense.com/general17/supremecourtrejects.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf Several State Supreme Courts have also ruled on the issue http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_22219025/denvers-assault-weapons-ban-withstood-test-time-court Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
