Originally Posted by
Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3234917
Time to chime in now that most have said something.
First and foremost the constitution will never be outdated. This was single dumbest remark I have ever seen. The founders, in their ultimate wisdom, foresaw the need for things to change as well with the times. This is why they incorporated the ratification of amendments into the constitution. each time an issue has come up regarding the constitution it has been ratified and amended on numerous occasions. To say it is outdated is asinine. If the people feel the constitution is outdated on a law it can and will be changed.
With that said, I will state this. I believed in an assault weapons ban about 15 years ago. As soon as I started actively following politics, studying the constitution, and the framework of laws in this country, I saw the errors of my beliefs.
The right to bear arms covers ALL armaments. be they guns, tanks, or nukes in my eye.There are laws and regulations in place on the ownership of these items and as long as those are followed the right to bear arms covers them. Yes even Nuclear weapons. While this does fall under international law and regulation I still feel if a private person/entity wishes to own a nuke they must submit themselves to law. The U.S. has agreed to international law through treaties and such and therefore our citizens must abide by the international on nuclear ownership.
Now before someone points out I do not support Iran, N. Korea, or even Iraq owning a WMD, they have violated the law with regards to ownership of such weapons and thus should not be allowed to own them. But if a private citizen wants to foot the bill for the cre4ation, purchase, and maintenance of said device and submit to the law, I have no issue...as crazy as that sounds.
The first thing a person has to explain to me for an assault weapons ban, is "why". The argument that they are not "needed" does not work. Neither is alcohol. Alcohol is involved in more criminal acts each year than all the gun crimes combined. Yet I don't see the outcry for an alcohol ban, nor do I see groups protesting or petitioning their constituents on it. I have NEVER seen a thread started here calling for the banning of alcohol. What makes assault weapons any different? Atleast the assault weapon will help protect the law abiding citizen....does alcohol?
So the fact it is not needed is dumb. we don't "need" a lot of things.You don't NEED a car that can do 150 MPH when the highest posted speed limit in the U.S. is 75 MPH. So why not just govern all vehicles to go only go a top speed of 75, since crash fatalities increase at higher speeds. You don't NEED to go 150 MPH. You don't even NEED to go 75 mph.
If the constitution is "outdated" on "arms" due to the advances in technologies, then congress and the president need to amend the constitution through the correct process to exempt these new "arms". Once done, then, AND ONLY THEN, will and assault weapons ban be constitutional.
Why a ban on assault weapons? The most common reason is because weapons of those types primarily have one purpose - to be used in a situation where you need multiple rounds for defense, i.e a fire fight in a war. If you're in combat, you want a weapon that you can shoot as fast as you can, and can hold as many bullets possible to keep reloads to a minimum. I wouldn't consider a home invasion a combat situation. You may interpret it that way, but I don't think there's any gun dealer that would recommend an AK-47 or TEC-9 for home defense. Other arguments for owning one of these weapons is because they can be used for target practice. I can agree with that one, considering I've already stated that's one of the uses I had for my AR-15. But at the same time, I have better things to do with $1200+ for that weapon, plus $15.00/box (beats me) that will last maybe 3 minutes if you go nuts at a range. That would validate your 'needs' requirement. If you could guarantee that an assault weapon could only be used for this purpose, I see no reason not to own one. But therein lies the problem. You can't make that guarantee. So do you go with the side of caution and ban them so they can't be used for the purpose we KNOW most people want those weapons for, or do you keep selling them hoping that they won't be used for anything more than target practice or whatever justification a responsible gun owner would want it for?
When I worked with my brother in his shop, I had the opportunity to deal with a variety of individuals who came in looking for the different kinds of guns he sold. I can attest that the one's coming in looking at the semi-auto rifles, you knew exactly what they intended to use them for. It was their attitude, their demeanor, the way they spoke, the way they acted when they held one of these weapons. But as long as they had a valid driver's license, were over the age of 18, and had the cash, we sold it to them.
