Federal Assault Weapons Ban Options

[*Kathleen*]

Before anyone jumps down my throat about repeated topics, I realize that there's a thread on guns already; however, it didn't really discuss the FAWB (hehe.. fawb ). So the question I pose to you is: Should the government renew the ban? Thoughts?

[sadolakced acid]

no.

the right to bear arms as encompassed in the second ammendment does not specifically reference the use of small arms for hunting or personal protection.

rather, it references that a militia being nessicary for the preservation of a free state, the right to bear arms will not be infringed upon.

therefore, we can clearly see the second ammendment does not just encompass small arms, but all military arms.

so, all military grade arms, cannons, tanks, and aircraft included should be protected under the 2nd ammendment.

i don't believe that these things should be made avalible; i merely believe this is what the constitition says.

[*kryogenix*]

No! Not at the federal level, and not at the state level! I hate New York, I need to buy a gun soon.

[*Kathleen*]

Okay whew. I brought this up because we discussed the importance of the Bill of Rights in AP Euro the other day (for Constitution Day ), and which particular amendements were more important than others. Many people in my class, to my surprise, found the second amendment to be the least important.

[*RubeTheCube*]

I took a look at the wikipedia article about the FAWB, but based on the limited info I have on it and the various circumstances in which its application could be overly restrictive or allow "bad" weapons to slip through, I cannot say with complete confidence whether or not it should be renewed.
I'll note: while I do think the 2nd amendment should be respected for the security of our nation, I believe that it definitely should have a certain level of restrictions attached.

so, all military grade arms, cannons, tanks, and aircraft included should be protected under the 2nd ammendment.

I'm going to have to disagree here, even though your intent is not to say these should be available.
Obviously those who were involved in the 2nd amendment's drafting process could not have predicted things like heavy tanks and supersonic bombers, let alone more extreme "arms" such as EMPs and thermonuclear warheads.
I know these are extreme examples and my post may seem a bit off topic mentioning them, but I just feel that the 2nd amendment is too outdated to be the only thing one would go by in determining if a weapon with a given set of characteristics should be legal or not.

I know that it it is very difficult to make blanket call on what exactly makes a given semi-automatic weapon an "Assault Weapon," so if a piece of federal legislation is to be active, it must be very carefully crafted.

All being said, I lean towards "no" because it seems to be a step too far against the 2nd amendment, but that is just my impression.

[sadolakced acid]

the 2nd ammendment is not outdated.

at the time of it's writing, warships, cannons, mortars, rockets, etc. were all avalible for private ownership. these were the top weapons of the time.

furthermore, the 2nd ammendement does not reference the right to bear arms for personal protection or to provide for your family, etc.

a direct reading is as follows:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, notice the specific reference to a well regulated militia. A militia is a military body that requires military arms. Therefore, the arms referenced in the ammendment cannot reference anything other than all military arms.

now, certainly, the founding fathers could not have forseen the advent of high powered destruction of today's military. However, as seen by armed resistances, these are used by occupiers. Invaders will not hesitate to use these high powered weapons against us; therefore, we should be allowed full access to these same weapons that could be used against us.

[*mipadi*]

Now, notice the specific reference to a well regulated militia. A militia is a military body that requires military arms. Therefore, the arms referenced in the ammendment cannot reference anything other than all military arms.

One definition of a militia is "all able-bodied citizens eligible by law for military service" (Oxford American Dictionary).

[sadolakced acid]

i don't see how that affects the discussion.

[*mipadi*]

i don't see how that affects the discussion.

Clearly it does, if one defines a militia as anyone able (and required) to serve in the military, then that includes all American men over the age of 18 (and perhaps under a certain age, but it'd be a pretty high age).

[sadolakced acid]

and this militia is expected to defend our country against tanks and airplanes with hunting rifles and pistols?

it still doens't change my point. an effective militia must have military arms; the second ammendment is intended to ensure effective militias.