Replies

I actually don't understand the 2nd amendment that well. Just how far does it go? We started with muskets, and now we're up to assault weapons (technologically), where does it end? Does "keep and bear arms" allow for rocket launchers, grenades, landmines, bazooka's, etc? I'm sure that there's probably a point at which some folks in this forum would raise their hand and go "the 2nd ammendment stops about there", each at various stages I'm sure. For my part, it stops at automatic weapons. Many of the folks here have already claimed that the bill is against semi-auto's that LOOK dangerous, which sounds silly. I'm not really an expert in these issues, I'll keep listening and reading. But I don't care if the founding father's showed up and said "yep, it includes fully auto uzi's" I'll be damned if I vote to allow people to purchase them.

Very interesting and very relevant comment. I'll throw in my 2 cents worth. First of all, the 2nd amendment does not grant us any right, we the people have all the rights. We wrote our Constitution to grant the federal government its rights. The 2nd amendment specifically states that the federal government cannot infringe of our right (that we are endowed with by our creator) to own firearms. Please note that the source of our rights is from our Creator, not the government. The government cannot remove that which it did not grant. Now for you second point about owning rocket launchers, grenades, landmines, bazooka's, etc. Yes the 2nd amendment would prohibit the federal government from infringing on our right to own these items. Do I think anyone should be able to own them, no. The problem exists that our government failed to address these issues in a legal way. As times and technology changed, and weaponry became more and more devastating, a constitutional amendment should have been added where we granted our government the authority to “infringe” with regard to these weapons.
When the first firearms act was passes back in 1938 (I think), to get control of the gangsters having true machine guns, the proposes of the bill couldn’t believe that it passed. They went around the Constitution by not refusing to allow automatic weapon ownership, but by taxing them. By requiring proof of paying the tax (now called the class III firearms tax stamp), they could simply fail to issue the tax stamp. It was not until 1989 that then president Bush made ownership of a “machine gun” illegal. It is still legal to own a pre 1989 machine gun provided you get the tax stamp. As with anything that has a limited supply, they are pretty much price prohibitive.