Are federal assault weapons bans unconstitutional?

[© Tweed the Younger]

Vote

[frenger]

Aye

[Emsworth]

Yes. We need not worry about the Second Amendment in this case; it is sufficient to remark that the federal government does not have an enumerated power to prohibit the possession of weapons of any kind.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

No.

[Emsworth]

No.

Might I ask, where does the Constitution allow the federal government to ban assault weapons?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

No.

Might I ask, where does the Constitution allow the federal government to ban assault weapons?

When the Constitution was written, "arms" meant muskets.  The definition of arms has clearly changed and I am not of the opinion that the founding fathers would have wanted for you and I to own personal nuclear weapons, tanks, or uzis.  That being said, I am not necessarily for the assault weapons ban, but I do not believe it is entirely inappropriate.

[Emsworth]

When the Constitution was written, "arms" meant muskets.  The definition of arms has clearly changed and I am not of the opinion that the founding fathers would have wanted for you and I to own personal nuclear weapons, tanks, or uzis.  That being said, I am not necessarily for the assault weapons ban, but I do not believe it is entirely inappropriate.

Well, the question isn't really about whether there is a right to bear assault weapons. The question is about whether there is an enumerated power to ban them. The federal government cannot pass a law, unless the Constitution directly authorizes it.

[ATFFL]

No.

Might I ask, where does the Constitution allow the federal government to ban assault weapons?

When the Constitution was written, "arms" meant muskets.  The definition of arms has clearly changed and I am not of the opinion that the founding fathers would have wanted for you and I to own personal nuclear weapons, tanks, or uzis.  That being said, I am not necessarily for the assault weapons ban, but I do not believe it is entirely inappropriate.

It also meant pistols and cannons.  Further, all sorts of bladed weapons were included.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

No.

Might I ask, where does the Constitution allow the federal government to ban assault weapons?

When the Constitution was written, "arms" meant muskets.  The definition of arms has clearly changed and I am not of the opinion that the founding fathers would have wanted for you and I to own personal nuclear weapons, tanks, or uzis.  That being said, I am not necessarily for the assault weapons ban, but I do not believe it is entirely inappropriate.

It also meant pistols and cannons.  Further, all sorts of bladed weapons were included.

If you'd like a 1780's era cannon in your backyard, be my guest.

[frenger]

No.

Might I ask, where does the Constitution allow the federal government to ban assault weapons?

When the Constitution was written, "arms" meant muskets.  The definition of arms has clearly changed and I am not of the opinion that the founding fathers would have wanted for you and I to own personal nuclear weapons, tanks, or uzis.  That being said, I am not necessarily for the assault weapons ban, but I do not believe it is entirely inappropriate.

It also meant pistols and cannons.  Further, all sorts of bladed weapons were included.

If you'd like a 1780's era cannon in your backyard, be my guest.

So, does the first ammendment apply only to linotypes?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

So, does the first ammendment apply only to linotypes?

The first amendment does not authorize the "right to keep and bear mouths", it authorizes speech and makes no mention of the form of delivery.  The second amendment speaks about "arms", as a form of delivery, in their context in 1789.

[Emsworth]

The first amendment does not authorize the "right to keep and bear mouths", it authorizes speech and makes no mention of the form of delivery.  The second amendment speaks about "arms", as a form of delivery, in their context in 1789.

The Constitution does not refer to the right to keep and bear such types of arms as existed in 1790. It refers to the right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional justification for including your proposed caveat.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The first amendment does not authorize the "right to keep and bear mouths", it authorizes speech and makes no mention of the form of delivery.  The second amendment speaks about "arms", as a form of delivery, in their context in 1789.

The Constitution does not refer to the right to keep and bear such types of arms as existed in 1790. It refers to the right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional justification for including your proposed caveat.

The justification is assumed.  What was considered in the common vernacular to be a "computer", like a digital watch, 40 years ago - would not be referred to as a "computer" in today's common vernacular.

[Ebowed]

Emsworth, the constitution is a living, breathing document.  It is there to be interpreted by everyone.  A progressive view of the constitution is not a bad thing.  Frankly I like the "new" way of thinking.  You shouldn't dismiss someone's opinions just because they're a closet socialist neo-con.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Emsworth, the constitution is a living, breathing document.  It is there to be interpreted by everyone.  A progressive view of the constitution is not a bad thing.  Frankly I like the "new" way of thinking.  You shouldn't dismiss someone's opinions just because they're a closet socialist neo-con.

Awww Ebowed, are you coming around?

[frenger]

The first amendment does not authorize the "right to keep and bear mouths", it authorizes speech and makes no mention of the form of delivery.  The second amendment speaks about "arms", as a form of delivery, in their context in 1789.

The Constitution does not refer to the right to keep and bear such types of arms as existed in 1790. It refers to the right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional justification for including your proposed caveat.

The justification is assumed.  What was considered in the common vernacular to be a "computer", like a digital watch, 40 years ago - would not be referred to as a "computer" in today's common vernacular.

Freedom of the press also meant the freedom to print things. it did not relate to the television or the radio.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The first amendment does not authorize the "right to keep and bear mouths", it authorizes speech and makes no mention of the form of delivery.  The second amendment speaks about "arms", as a form of delivery, in their context in 1789.

The Constitution does not refer to the right to keep and bear such types of arms as existed in 1790. It refers to the right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional justification for including your proposed caveat.

The justification is assumed.  What was considered in the common vernacular to be a "computer", like a digital watch, 40 years ago - would not be referred to as a "computer" in today's common vernacular.

Freedom of the press also meant the freedom to print things. it did not relate to the television or the radio.

Which is why we have an FCC to regulate them

[TexasGurl]

Has the supreme court said they are unconstitutional?

[Emsworth]

The first amendment does not authorize the "right to keep and bear mouths", it authorizes speech and makes no mention of the form of delivery.  The second amendment speaks about "arms", as a form of delivery, in their context in 1789.

The Constitution does not refer to the right to keep and bear such types of arms as existed in 1790. It refers to the right to keep and bear arms. There is no constitutional justification for including your proposed caveat.

The justification is assumed.  What was considered in the common vernacular to be a "computer", like a digital watch, 40 years ago - would not be referred to as a "computer" in today's common vernacular.

So, by that logic, Congress does not have the authority to create an Air Force, because in 1789, an Air Force was not considered to be included in the term "Armies."

Your argument seems to confuse the definition of the term "arms" with the specific types of arms that were available in 1791. The general definition of "arms" remains constant for constitutional purposes, but the types of instruments that fall within its scope change over time. A rejection of this line of reasoning yields a very convuluted and highly implausible interpretation of the Constitution.

[ATFFL]

No.

Might I ask, where does the Constitution allow the federal government to ban assault weapons?

When the Constitution was written, "arms" meant muskets.  The definition of arms has clearly changed and I am not of the opinion that the founding fathers would have wanted for you and I to own personal nuclear weapons, tanks, or uzis.  That being said, I am not necessarily for the assault weapons ban, but I do not believe it is entirely inappropriate.

It also meant pistols and cannons.  Further, all sorts of bladed weapons were included.

If you'd like a 1780's era cannon in your backyard, be my guest.

So would you ban all weapons that did not exist in the 1790s?  Improved single shot rifles?  Repeaing pistols?

If not, can I have the modern cannon, i.e., a howitzer?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Emsworth, the constitution is a living, breathing document.  It is there to be interpreted by everyone.  A progressive view of the constitution is not a bad thing.  Frankly I like the "new" way of thinking.  You shouldn't dismiss someone's opinions just because they're a closet socialist neo-con.

I should point out that the Constitution is not a table rasa for a group of judges to use to inflict their opinions upon us.

If you don't like a provision of the Constitution, amendment is in order.  This has been done several times.

[Ebowed]

Emsworth, the constitution is a living, breathing document.  It is there to be interpreted by everyone.  A progressive view of the constitution is not a bad thing.  Frankly I like the "new" way of thinking.  You shouldn't dismiss someone's opinions just because they're a closet socialist neo-con.

I should point out that the Constitution is not a table rasa for a group of judges to use to inflict their opinions upon us.

If you don't like a provision of the Constitution, amendment is in order.  This has been done several times.

My post was sarcasm directed at those who support these ridiculous "assault weapon" bans, CARL.  I do not actually believe what you quoted.

[Cubby]

No, ban all guns, ban some guns, whatever gets you off.

[The Constitarian]

[/quote]

When the Constitution was written, "arms" meant muskets.  The definition of arms has clearly changed and I am not of the opinion that the founding fathers would have wanted for you and I to own personal nuclear weapons, tanks, or uzis.  That being said, I am not necessarily for the assault weapons ban, but I do not believe it is entirely inappropriate.
[/quote]

This argument is stupid.  The founding fathers openly stated that the second ammendment was for the people to be equally armed as the military so they can't be oppressed.

[??????????]

You must remember Don supports the federal government removing arms from people during times of national crisis. He supported that freedom hating activity going on in New Orleans when the cops beat up on old ladies to take away their handguns.