The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
Have you ever READ the 2nd Amendment?
First, the term "assault weapon" is a lie, because "assault weapons" are full-automatic capable rifles like the M-16. We are talking about semi-automatic rifles that outwardly LOOK like military assault rifles. So already, the entire debate is based on a lie.
As a citizen of our country, still allowed, as of this writing, to participate in the blessings of liberty, this is definitely something you should understand.
Regards,
Hat-Trick
How, precisely, is a ban on assault weapons a violation of the 2nd Amendment? I'm being serious and sincere in the question, so I'd appreciate a serious and sincere response.
|
A ban on any arms is a violation of the second amendment. The second states that the right protected, that is the right to keep and bear arms, belongs to the people, "right of the people. Not a power of the states. That right is not to be infringed, not to be touched. Denying the people the right to purchase an entire class of arms is an infringement of their right to keep and bear those arms, especially "to keep", which meant to have, not merely to retain, as is the more common modern usage
A ban, or even a stiff tax not applied to other good, on machine guns, which the so-called assault weapons are most assuredly not, is also such an infringement.
A far better question is "Where in the Constitution is Congress given the authority to ban 'Assault Weapons'?"
When you find the answer to that question, your journey of discovery will have only begun.
Cheers.
As a lawyer, here's the argument I would make to a judge in the Fifth Circuit stated very briefly and in laymans terms: The Emerson Case held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right too keep and bear arms. Therefore, any law that regulates firearms can only be upheld if it is "narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest". In this case, the purported state interest is public safety. The law is not "narrowly tailored" to that interest because the assault weapons law containes an arbitrary definition of "assault weapons" that outlaws cosmetic features such as flash suppressors and pistol grips that do not affect the dangerousness of the weapon. Moreover, the law does not further the interest of public safety, because there is no evidence that the types of weapons subject to the ban are used in a significant amount of criminal acts.
The ban (especially as Feinstein wants to rewrite it) deprives citizens of the very type of arms the 2nd was meant to protect...arms that provide effective defense and effective deterrence. Perhaps a better question would be "How, precisely, is a ban on assault weapons a violation of American ideals?".
Kerry and the gun banners keep saying "Hey, no one wants to mess with your right to hunt ducks". Imagine if we applied the same logic to other freedoms we take for granted?
Ban on cellphones: "Hey, no one wants to mess with your right to stay home and talk to Grandma."
Ban on motorcycles: "Hey, no one wants to mess with your right to drive your car to work."
Ban on fast food: "Hey, no one wants to mess with your right to eat healthful salads."
And going down this road, what's to prevent a ban on open display of faith? "Hey, no one wants to mess with your right to have Santa and the Easter Bunny." Of course the ACLU would probably ban Santa too, they're thorough.
All this whiny, milquetoast dumbing down of our basic rights is not just a violation of some amendment. It's more fundamental than that. We're either free Americans, or some degree of subjects, frogs-in-the-kettle wondering why it's so hot in here.
Federalist 46 is a good explanation.