@Fred44It 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.
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.
(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.
@tejasNo, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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