Second Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic firearms

[deen_ad]

But there were semi auto firearms when the 2nd Amendment was ratified. So how could it not apply to them?

Girandoni Air Rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Better file that under "wrong"
It was more like a bolt action as you had to point the rifle skyward so gravity could feed the ball then manipulate the feed mechanism, that's even slower than a bolt action that needs hand cocking.

Were revolvers even in use at the time the 2nd was ratified? If not they could be in trouble under this decision (however wrong it is)!

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
Defender of Freedom Award
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

 

[simon99]

When the Second Amendment was written, it applied to all firearms. The was no distinction between a "military" arm and the firearm the average citizen owned. Likewise today, there should be zero distinction between the firearms the military carries and the weapons we as civilians should possess.

 

[Will_Power]

This just in. The 2nd Amendment! A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed.

Got it all wrong.

The Second Amendment actually goes like this:

A well regulated hunting reason, being not necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and hunt with muskets shall be only reasonably infringed.

 

[The B]

You need to work the phrase "common-sense" into that.

 

[Stevenav]

Some will, most won't

You greatly underestimate the will of the US citizenry and that of gun owners.

I'll be blunt, if the federal Govt were to attempt to seize all firearms from the citizenry tomorrow, I'd attempt to call up all armed men and women I could to join a continental army against the federal gov't.

The US gov't probably will never try anything like that in reality.. but others have said "well that can't happen here" throughout history... right up till is DID happen there.

 

[U201491]

Got it all wrong.

The Second Amendment actually goes like this:

A well regulated hunting reason, being not necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and hunt with muskets shall be only reasonably infringed.

According to Lenon, Kruschev and Obama..........................

 

[Darknight]

You need to work the phrase "common-sense" into that.

Throw something in about it being for the children too.

 

[simon99]

Throw something in about it being for the children too.

And "weapons of war"....

 

[U201491]

This is what the 2nd actually applied to. and a bit more.

<broken link removed>

Ares Shrike - YouTube

 

[balaperdida]

Additionally, Semis are not! Assault weapons. An assault weapon by definition has a selective fire capability. That's historical fact dating back to the first assault rifle in WWII.
Hopefully some very good lawyer will argue this case if it goes up the judicial chain.

Brutus out

Beg to differ. You have confused and conflated your definitions. "Assault weapon" was a term invented for the assault weapon ban. Selective fire, including full-auto, is a feature found "on assault RIFLES", such as the M16, and the German Sturmgewehr of WWII. Assault weapons are actually defined by cosmetic features instead of function.

 

[RoneKiln]

I really don't know what direction we are headed. The most frightening aspect of all I have been seeing in these harrowing recent times has been the indoctrination of our country's youth to see firearms as evil and fear even those who use them legally and for sporting purposes.

It's all part of the long con.

They've definitely attempted this. It's not worked in my region. Fifteen years ago the college populace in my town was extremely and vocally anti-gun. Today it's the opposite. Oddly enough, it's the most liberal of them that are now the most vocal about supporting firearm ownership. They're all anti-GMO's, pro gay rights and abortion, anti-corporate, yet extremely pro-gun. Especially the young women. The number of young women I see at gun shows and in gun stores has skyrocketed. I now regularly overhear them discussing the merits of various pistols for concealed carry or a night stand gun. More often than not, zombies are also involved in the discussion.

This is why I often ask conservative pro-gun activists to shut up about the other conservative issues important to them while addressing 2nd amendment rights. Those other issues are extremely important and should be advocated in their appropriate place. But I have seen a huge portion of those that want to support us on the 2nd amendment go silent cause we keep dragging in other unrelated issues that they feel just as passionately about.

Even the few I know that are still antigun are generally misinformed by our insane media. They're advocating stricter gun laws because they wrongly believe any idiot can buy an automatic rifle over the internet with no background check. Screaming "Molon Labe" just makes us look crazier in their eyes. Calmly explaining what the laws really are and what is really going on changes their opinion real quick.

I thought I had over a years worth of ammo stored up for my regular shooting habits. After Sandy Hook I suddenly had a huge number of previously antigun friends asking me to take them shooting when I explained what the laws really were, and what we really used our "scary black rifles" for. I suddenly didn't have near enough ammo. A number of those young adults went from "we need more gun control" to "look at my new Glock!" Especially young women. And no, I am not young and good looking enough for that to be a factor. They sincerely are pro social rights of all kinds and they see gun ownership as one of those rights.

 

[U201491]

Beg to differ. You have confused and conflated your definitions. "Assault weapon" was a term invented for the assault weapon ban. Selective fire, including full-auto, is a feature found "on assault RIFLES", such as the M16, and the German Sturmgewehr of WWII. Assault weapons are actually defined by cosmetic features instead of function.

Bullpucky

 

[The B]

"assault rifle" is whatever the hell the law in question defines it as. Could be an un-neutered cat, for all the court cares, when you're charged with violating said law.

Debate over what is or isn't an "assault rifle" is incredibly pointless.

 

[USAF Medic]

The militia of the United States is defined in title 10 0the US code. The militia consists of all persons between the age of 18 and 46. THE Draft.

 

[Riot]

When the Second Amendment was written, it applied to all firearms. The was no distinction between a "military" arm and the firearm the average citizen owned. Likewise today, there should be zero distinction between the firearms the military carries and the weapons we as civilians should possess.

Exactly...if the founding fathers didn't want cannons and artillery to the public they would have excluded them. They wanted the arms that were accessible to the military in the hands of the people to prevent the standing armies from being used by an oppressive government against the people.

Federalist Papers #46 makes it clear that if an effectively armed militia was formed, it would overthrow even the most well equiped armies protecting the tyrants on thrones. This can only be done if:

*Standing armies are limited in times of peace
*Militias are maintained by each state
*The people are allowed to own and be armed with the same armaments as their military counterparts

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Nevertheless, it can be argued that individuals shouldn't possess nuclear bombs, grenade launchers and drones with hellfire missles. Nevertheless, the founding fathers knew that to keep tyranny at bay, the people would need to at least have the cards to beat the dealer. Am I saying I should have a nuke? No...but I am saying that this whole argument against semi-automatics is precisely what our founding fathers didn't want.

 

[The B]

Nevertheless, it can be argued that individuals shouldn't possess nuclear bombs, grenade launchers and drones with hellfire missles. Nevertheless, the founding fathers knew that to keep tyranny at bay, the people would need to at least have the cards to beat the dealer. Am I saying I should have a nuke? No...but I am saying that this whole argument against semi-automatics is precisely what our founding fathers didn't want.

You can own all of those except a nuke, if you're willing to jump through the hoops.

As far as the nuke goes.... please tell me: what would happen if nuclear weapons were legal to own? Do you think private ownership of nuclear devices would increase?

Do you know that nukes are so hard to make/obtain that only 6 governments in the known universe possess them, and most of those only possess a few token examples given to them by others?

Buddy, if you possessed the means and money to own a nuke, whether or not they were legal would make absolutely no difference to you, if you wanted one.

 

[The B]

Laws are not responsible for the lack of private ownership of nukes.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Beg to differ. You have confused and conflated your definitions. "Assault weapon" was a term invented for the assault weapon ban. Selective fire, including full-auto, is a feature found "on assault RIFLES", such as the M16, and the German Sturmgewehr of WWII. Assault weapons are actually defined by cosmetic features instead of function.

As one who DID go to law school I can tell you that Miller does not need to be reversed or modified in any way to defeat the CA appeals court decision. They are simply mistaken. They cite the M16 as being prohibited under Miller. We need not argue with that at all. An M16 is capable of full auto fire, and that's why it is unprotected under Miller. But the CA court goes on to confuse civilian semi-auto ONLY rifles with M16s, presumably because they look the same, or out of simple ignorance of the differences. The CA court is simply mistaken. It is an error in fact. Presumably the next court up the line would be more informed (or could be) by the defense attorney as to the very real functional differences between an M15 and M16, and the lack of differences between an M15 and other non-banned semi-autos. This is simply a huge (willful?) mistake by the CA court. It needs to be corrected.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

WE know what the 2nd means..and it is not limited to semi auto firearms but to all ARMS a militia could use to defend the nation and liberty. now the question is:

If they try to disarm us, what are we prepared to do?

 

[cascadianliberty2012]

Yeah, and the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to phone calls, TV, or the internet. Oh, but I'm sure they would say that's ok. What a flawed argument.