At 1/17/13 05:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/17/13 01:21 PM, TheMason wrote:
How is an AWB not an infringement? An infringement is defined as being a violation, breach, or encroachment on a right. A ban on 'military style' guns encroaches my right to go to the store and buy one.Better argument, but still, hardly convincing.
No...it establishes that an AWB is an infringement. You have not established that it is NOT. The most you have done is establish that it is not a TOTAL infringement that takes away the right COMPLETELY.
Furthermore, you still have not really established how or why such an infringement is necessary, or that the guns fall into an unusual or uncommon category per Justic Scalia's majority opinion in Heller vs. DC.
... So let's go with lawful need. That is a very good place to draw the line between what should be allowed and what should be an overstepping of a very vague Amendment. So let;s take a peek, now should we.
But the question is: does banning them serve the public good? Is there a compelling reason to ban them? Is there something unusual and uncommon about them that makes them fall into the category of being too much for civilians to own?
First of all...the idea that the amendment is vague is a modern contrivance created by people with an agenda. If you have an understanding of history, the Constitution, and the political thought of the Founders...it is not vague at all.
- Rifles meant to look like military rifles: the lawful need is not clear at all. The mere want is not a lawful need.
- high capacity magazines: No reasonable self defense or hunting scenario nessecitates the quick firing of more than 7 roundsin such a short period.
The lawful need here is the core of the second amendment: National Defense. The second amendment guarantees the right for the citizenry to keep firearms that are common to the military in order to provide for the security of a free state. I will get into the feasibility of this in a moment in answer to something you write later on.
- Forward grip: I am inclined to believe that there is no reasonable scenario where a vertical forward grip is needed for hunting or self defense.
A forward grip allows for greater shooting stability and control of the firearm. Yes it does help control high rates of fire...but it also increases accuracy in hunting and self-defense. It is reasonable.
In other words: all lawful needs for firearms remain even after the proprosed restrictions.
I'm going to assume for a moment that you are right about that military clones have no lawful purpose...
You still have not established a justification for why should be banned. Sports cars, SUVs and trucks with engines bigger than V-6s serve no lawful purpose for people who are not police, farmers, or tradesmen. But people who use them irresponsibly kill more people than guns per year. Then they cause pollution and secondary & tertiary public health effects. There are far more plausible reasons to ban certain types of vehicles than Assault Rifles.
I would also say, in response to the anti-tyrrany point, that the difference between 7 rounds and 10 rounds, or a rifle that looks like an M1 and one that looks like and M-16, makes little to no difference in fighting a mobilized military force, so that argument holds very little water.
Actually, speaking as a veteran...it carries a helluva lot of water. In Afghanistan the Mujahideen were able to hold off a much stronger army than ours (the USSR) with WWII era bolt action rifles. In Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan our forces faced serious challenges from an irregular force that was pathetically equipped compared to ours.
In Iraq the US military, it is worth mentioning, had the advantage of the terrain. The desert terrain allows us to employ our technological advantage to max effect.
We don't have this in the US, our mountainous and rugged terrain would impede armor and mobile infantry as well as our airpower. Furthermore, the military would fracture with enough equipment falling into 'rebel' hands to put them on par with government forces.
The advantage that the people would have over a tyrannical government...is the ability to have firearms. Including firearms that are common to the military.
This is not comparable to the freedom of speech either. The freedom of speech exists on the presumption that all speech has a use and that the speech must be exraordinary to be restricted. The presumption here is that all guns are dangerous and there must be a specific lawful need to subject the entirety of the nation to that danger. Even then, speech is restricted all the time, and it's much more protectable than guns are.
True, but the thing is once you delve into the math about guns, violence, and injury...the public time and time again have proven that they are capable of handleing the responsiblity.
Where as our journalists have shown that maybe they are not capable of responsibly handling their first amendment rights.