Why all semi-automatic weapons must be banned on a national basis

It is now more than evident that it is very dangerous for a society to allow for the widespread distribution and ownership of weapons whose sole purpose is to destroy human life.

I said skeet I meant clays but figured some people wouldn’t know what a clay is.

German citizens were disarmed during the Weimar Republic, prior to the Nazi years.

I am just old...😄

one of the major purposes for weapons is to defend ourselves AND our nation- and a person CAN NOT DO SO without weapons that are up to the task-

We are having to send the Ukraine weapons because they didn’t have enough to defend themselves- and that is obviously the exact same position the left want our own country in- unable to defend itself-

We have an inalienable right- this means a God Give Right! To defend ourselves, and also an obligation to defend this nation against all threats domestic and foreign, but we will never be able to do that if the left get their way-

The people who demand this sort of action are the people we need weapons to protect ourselves and our families from.

Make no mistake, they are coming for our families!

C’mon man. Bob’s not a bad guy. He just wants to make sure the America of the future can have Gulags, death camps, and ethnic cleansing just like Europe.

Thumbs UP!

This right here. There is no coexisting with Marxists. It always ends up in an ‘us or them’ moment. Always.

“In this modern era, I think the reaction would be exactly the same,”

Then again, there are a lot of us that have stayed p!ssed off by the liberal/BLM/atifarts activity for years now. We always shy back knowing the big fed will crack down hard and fast on anyone going after their brownshirts.

Decouple the fed legal jeopardy from killing their pets and we get the party going

“. . . those who are trying to take them away” are going to be eliminated by the Democrat process, if we can clean it up.

“It is now more than evident that it is very dangerous for a society to allow for the widespread distribution and ownership of weapons whose sole purpose is to destroy human life.”

OK, now explain your position on sending BILLIONS of $$$ worth of weapons to Ukraine.

Please explain your position on approx. 300,000 fully automatic machines guns and 85 BILLION dollars worth of helicopters, trucks, ammunition, night vision devices and myriad war matériel abandoned in Afghanistan.

The US government is one of the largest arms exporters around, I betcha. Anybody noticing some disconnect with these folks? They don’t seem to GAF about anybody else, despite their oft repeated claims to the contrary.

Don’t need guns anymore — got robots. Can’t wait to take my first whitetail with an AI drone.

A raging moron.🙄

Can of gasoline?🙄

Governments don’t call them “assault weapons”; in their parlance they are called “Personal Defense Weapons”.

What’s wrong with that definition?

Skeet under, Skeet over

to the author,

im 70. i aint got the kung phooey no more. will you come and defend me?

i do not think so, therefore, i can get the Samuel Colt equalizer.

It is now more than evident that it is very dangerous for a society to allow for the widespread distribution and ownership of weapons whose sole purpose is to destroy human life.

The vast majority of weapons capable of destroying human life are neither purchased with the intent to destroy human life, or ever used with the intent to destroy human life.

There is no mention in the Second Amendment about an individual right to own and bear arms.

The Second Amendment protected the pre-existing common law right to keep and bear arms. The Amendment did not define the right, but the common law did define it as an individual right to keep and bear arms.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)

5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Bruen, Opinion of the Court by Justice Thomas, slip op. at 58:

We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted). Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. 411, 411–412 (2016) (per curiam) (stun guns).

Id. at 58:

After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)). That said, we cautioned that we were not “undertak[ing] an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment” and moved on to considering the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. 554 U. S., at 627.

Id. at 62:

The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions. Heller, 554 U. S., at 581.

- - - - - - - - - -

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to placate those former colonies (and soon to be States), who feared the potential of a federal government acting like the King they just overthrew.

The States declared independence in 1776. They waged successful revolution and their existence as independent states was recognized dating from the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and Washington was inaugurated in 1789. The constitutional union was created by the states, and the states that ratified the Constitution became its members. Subsequently, the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights was proposed by the Congress of the United States, and ratified by the people of the United States.

The king was overthrown in 1776. The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, fifteen years later. As such, "soon to be" states had nothing to do with it.

The bulk of the military that fought the Revolutionary War was state militias (the modern equivalent of which is the National Guard) acting under the command of federal forces.
This is not dissimilar from the current structure of our military forces.

As there was no federal government, there were no federal forces involved in the Revolutionary War. There were thirteen independent states, joined in a league of friendship and cooperation.

The Article of Confederation came into force in 1781. ARticles II and III states:

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.

There were state militias. The whole thing had no similarity to the current structure of our military forces. No federal military force was created.

It is self-evident that these weapons are not needed for either personal protection or for hunting.

If the hunter's first shot only makes his intended prey angry, and it is charging at the hunter, the hunter may find some utility in having a semi-auto rifle in his hands for personal protection.

The Constitution expressly allows Congress the right and authority to dictate the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

No, it does not. Article III, Section 2 sets forth the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. It does not grant Congress the authority to do other than what the Constitution states. Congress has no power to add to the stated jurisdiction of the Judiciary. It is authorized to carve out exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Judiciary.

To make sure the will of a majority of U.S. citizens are (sic - is) implemented, Congress could remove from the jurisdiction of the federal courts the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a ban of semi-automatic weapons (similar to the removal of jurisdiction over habeas corpus during the Civil War).

Congress has no authority to change anything in the Constitution, or enact any legislation repugnant thereto.

The only way to avoid minority rule is for the majority to support and vote for those representatives, at all levels of government, local, state and federal, who also share the same view of society.

This is not a Democracy where majority rules. Nothing could be clearer where the winner of the popular vote in a presidential election may not win a majority of the states' electoral votes.

The Constitution did not create a system where a majority dictates to the minority. It established a government of limited, delegated powers. Some powers were delegated to the Federal government, and the rest were reserved by the people. The people on each state decided which of their reserved powers to delegate to their state government.

The constitutionally protected freedom of expression includes expression the majority finds objectionable. It is not the freedom to state only what the majority approves.

Now is the time to make clear what kind of society we really want.

The Constitution provides for a society that enjoys freedom for all. It is designed to protect the rights of a minority against an overreaching majority. It includes the freedom for this author to say really stupid stuff.

Gun control is a front for the advancement of the socialist agenda. Giving in to the idea that guns are dangerous concedes to the notion that it is better to let some lowlife steal your property, rape your wife, and beat you half to death than it is to expedite his passage into the next world.

(Your property was all gained at his expense anyway; so, in a moral sense, he’s entitled to it as much as you are.)

That is the core of the socialist doctrine. And it is the dominant worldview of most of the industrialized world.