Comments about ‘Add-ons let semi-autos fire like military weapons’

shall not be infringed, means what it says, no more, no less, the 1934 law making maching guns illegal is by defenition infringing on the 2nd amendment and by law, the bill of rights being that law, is unconstitutional. the supreme court hasn't got the authority the modify the bill of rights, only to protect it.

Impossible. It is illegal and therefore no one would modify a semi auto to a full auto. There are laws against it and everyone obeys them.

100 rounds fired in 7 seconds. Just what every patriotic American gun nut needs!

And tejas, perhaps you need to go back and study your high school civics lessons a little more.

tejas,

No one has infringed upon your right to bear arms. The second amendment doesn't provide you the right to bear any and all arms of your choosing. There is no legislation pending or proposed that will infringe upon your right to bear arms.

@tejas

No, the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to modify the Bill of Rights, but it DOES have the authority to interpret it, and in fact, is the only body that has ultimate authority to do so.

The Supreme Court has upheld the National Firearms Act, and other gun control acts, on a number of occasions, and has specifically opined the following:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. The right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

(continued)
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. The sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service —M-16 rifles and the like— may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. The fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
-District of Columbia v. Heller, Opinion of the Court, pp. 52-56.

Everyone should carry an automatic weapon with large clip around and auto hand gun everywhere all the time? When we get the that gun crazy utopia, please vote to repeal the Second Amendment.

@Fred44

It doesn't prohibit it either.

In fact I would say it encouragers it. IF the citzens must ever fight a tryrannical government, they must have some equivalency or balance ("well regulated", to function properly or in balance to, see other defintions of 'regulate') to the federal government.

We can see fom the many comment of left and progressives heer and on other stories, that they been working on stripping rights and liberties away from the people for many many decades.

waht else is the purpose of doctrine that there is no absolute right, other than to give the central government more power to control and regulate, and the people less.