The Revolution Starts: Confiscation

[JimL]

looks like it is being challenged already:

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/news/ct-dfr-assault-weapon-ban-lawsuit-tl-0412-story.html

Lawsuit challenges Deerfield's assault weapons ban: 'It flies in the face of state law'
...
Joining Deerfield resident Daniel Easterday and the Illinois State Rifle Association in the lawsuit is the Second Amendment Foundation based in Bellevue, Wash., which says its membership includes Deerfield residents.

“We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flies in the face of state law,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation in a statement. “While the village is trying to disguise this as an amendment to an existing ordinance, it is, in fact, a new law that entirely bans possession of legally-owned, semi-automatic firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense.”

© Copyright Original Source

Which is why we need to repeal and replace, ya know, like republicans did with healthcare , the 2nd amendment with more sensible language.

[Sparko]

Which is why we need to repeal and replace, ya know, like republicans did with healthcare , the 2nd amendment with more sensible language.

Sometimes I think you actually study on how to say stupid things on theologyweb.

[TheWall]

Replace with what? I doubt anyone will actually be able to do anything, but for arguments sake it is done. What do you replace it with? You will have arguments on all sides. For all you know it could be replaced and the ban on machine guns may be lifted. Replace with what? Name some policies.

[Mountain Man]

Which is why we need to repeal and replace, ... the 2nd amendment with more sensible language.

Right. Maybe we need to strip out the language about militias since that seems to confuse low-info liberals like you and just have it read, simply, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[JimL]

Right. Maybe we need to strip out the language about militias since that seems to confuse low-info liberals like you and just have it read, simply, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Or perhaps the language about militias, about the need of well regulated militias, was actually included in the text for a reason.

[Sparko]

Or perhaps the language about militias, about the need of well regulated militias, was actually included in the text for a reason.

because when the British ARMY tried to put down the revolution, ordinary farmers banded together and fought them off.

[Zymologist]

Or perhaps the language about militias, about the need of well regulated militias, was actually included in the text for a reason.

Obviously "well regulated" was intended to mean that the government could pass myriad laws banning the use of assault weapons, which fortunately is a clearly defined category of firearms.

[JimL]

because when the British ARMY tried to put down the revolution, ordinary farmers banded together and fought them off.

Yes, which is why the right was not to be infringed. But the fact that the right already existed, there was no law against it, doesn't make the right to keep and bear arms, as you have asserted, a natural right. The reason it was not to be infringed upon was not because it was a natural right, it was to protect the state. Different time, different circumstances. But the SCOTUS has already determined that the right is not unlimited, so nothing of the amendment actually has to be changed, all we have to do is decide the limits we want to put on it.

[JimL]

Obviously "well regulated" was intended to mean that the government could pass myriad laws banning the use of assault weapons, which fortunately is a clearly defined category of firearms.

Take it up with the SCOTUS. Yes the government can regulate, or ban, the use of assault weapons. We've already done it.

[Sparko]

Yes, which is why the right was not to be infringed. But the fact that the right already existed, there was no law against it, doesn't make the right to keep and bear arms, as you have asserted, a natural right. The reason it was not to be infringed upon was not because it was a natural right, it was to protect the state. Different time, different circumstances. But the SCOTUS has already determined that the right is not unlimited, so nothing of the amendment actually has to be changed, all we have to do is decide the limits we want to put on it.

So basically because it was a right that they believed we already had by virtue of being human beings, that means that it wasn't a natural right?

Jim...

index.jpg

[Sparko]

Take it up with the SCOTUS. Yes the government can regulate, or ban, the use of assault weapons. We've already done it.

no actually they haven't.

You can still own a machine gun.

[JimL]

So basically because it was a right that they believed we already had by virtue of being human beings, that means that it wasn't a natural right?

Jim...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27334[/ATTACH]

Where does it say that the FF believed that the right to bear arms was a natural right. If it were thought to be a natural right, then they wouldn't have had to even mention militias, or protection of the state in the amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is just a right that people had because there was no existing law prohibiting it, not because it was a natural born right. You're just making that part up.

[JimL]

no actually they haven't.

You can still own a machine gun.

The Federal assault weapons ban was in place from 1994 until 2004 when it expired. So, yes we have already done it.

[Sparko]

Where does it say that the FF believed that the right to bear arms was a natural right. If it were thought to be a natural right, then they wouldn't have had to even mention militias, or protection of the state in the amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is just a right that people had because there was no existing law prohibiting it, not because it was a natural born right. You're just making that part up.

They didn't. In fact it was argued that the Bill of Rights was not even needed because the rights already belonged to the people. Smarter heads prevailed and insisted they be written down anyway. The Bill of rights doesn't give us rights, it is a list of limitations of governmental powers. We already had the rights because they were natural rights.

One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.
...
The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment’s prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...ill-of-rights/

[Sparko]

The Federal assault weapons ban was in place from 1994 until 2004 when it expired. So, yes we have already done it.

no. They only TRIED to ban the manufacture of vaguely defined "assault" weapons and "high capacity magazines". You could still own any made prior to 1994. But the law was so messed up and full of loopholes it was practically not even there.