No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back?
This is a discussion on No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mlr1m
The founding fathers had no problem with citizens owning muskets and dueling pistols. These were the very same arms issued to ...
June 14th, 2010 10:14 PM
No, they did not fail to allow for technology development -- they were amazingly prescient. By adding the militia phrase they made sure the CONTEXT would always be (at least) those weapons needed by (and commonly issued) to the inidividual infantryman and now the police.
Originally Posted by mlr1m
At the time, there was no police as we know them now, but our current para-military style police also set a minimum set of arms and those that are similar that MUST be protected as part of the individual pre-existing right to bear arms.
Our right to bear arms is important -- necessary -- to a free state (i.e., nation, country) because it ensures that the militia (the body of the people) are available, already trained, and possessing arms to be called to supplement the military (or para-military) forces that protect the Constitution and the nation.
All this would be true even if the Court had not long since declared that our rights extend to modern technology, such as telephones, computers, television, radio, modern printing presses etc.
It would be true even if the Heller decision did not explicitly say that the right to keep and bear arms applies to ""all instruments that constitute bearable arms."
All bearable arms, including automatic firearms.
June 14th, 2010 10:14 PM
June 17th, 2010 11:27 PM
I can see what you are saying here. However, I don't think we need to limit certain guns just because some people are stupid with them. (we don't need more gun laws) We already have laws to arrest people that act stupid with their guns! Keep in mind that there are a lot of "dangerous weapons" (so to speak) in this world that are not restricted. Anybody can buy a car or motorcycle capable of going over 200 MPH. (money permitting of course) We have all seen people that can't handle the responsibility of owning these vehicles. However, people that own them can drive them as fast as they want (on a closed course, with safety gear) and avoid getting arrested. In a similar way, people that own weapons can use them at a range and be safe. People that use them unsafely in public will be punished. Cars kill way more people than guns, yet there are no laws restricting the purchase of "certain" cars. Its quite unfair when you think about it. According to the 2nd Amendment, our gun rights should be every bit as free as our right to own cars, if not more!
Originally Posted by BikerRN
June 17th, 2010 11:45 PM
And in fact, there is NO requirement to have a "license to drive" or to "register an automobile" in most states.
You only have to take those steps if you wish to operate the automobile on the public roads.
You can own a car without that.
And of course that is all without there being an explicit enumeration of the Right to Keep and Bear autos.
By tangoseal in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: September 8th, 2010, 02:09 AM
By tangoseal in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
Last Post: September 6th, 2010, 01:26 PM
By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: June 3rd, 2010, 07:23 PM
By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: August 16th, 2009, 09:28 PM
By BlackPR in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: February 23rd, 2009, 04:57 AM
Search tags for this page
register select fire weapons
Click on a term to search for related topics.