View Single Post
      12-19-2012, 12:35 PM   #66
Brigadier General
uberschnell's Avatar

Drives: Wide Body 1
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bay Area

iTrader: (48)

Originally Posted by sjk9671 View Post
That's interesting when this is right in the second paragraph:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia
, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Also about the term militia....

Militia was a generic term used back then to refer to the people:

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." Richard Henry Lee -1788

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
The topics in these discussion seem to float back and forth across two distinct points and cloud the argument. First is the right to own weapons. The argument presented goes to the heart of that. I don't argue with the fact that this is the current law of the land.

The second is the ability of the government to control or limit what type of weaponry you can have. Well the law is pretty clear here. For example you can't own a grenade or an anti-tank missile, or a machine gun without special permitting. In California you can't own a clip that holds more then 10 rounds. None of this have been overturned by the SCOTUS, so it's clear the government can have a say.

What's being proposed at the Federal level is a ban on high capacity clips. You can argue your rational for why we should or shouldn't do this, but you can't say that it's a constitutional right to own one.

My point is simple, I do not think there is a rational reason for owning high capacity clips or semi-automatic rifles without fixed magazines and that no weapon should be able to hold more the 10 rounds at a time. This is based on my reasoning that weapons should be used for personal defense or hunting, both of which can be done effectively with those restrictions in place.