So what happens to the 59,000 rounds of ammo they found at his place? Auction?
How does mere recognition of the institution of slavery in a document equate to it being a right enshrined in it?
Just wait until bibles are banned.
Ha! I'll be at Alcatraz.
No, AR's are the most common rifle bought today, and they have no functional difference between many other semi-autos that are NOT illegal. If criminals choose to flout that law and use AR's anyway, I can defend against them at par level with many other weapons that are legal for me to own. Automatic weapons are uncommon AND functionally different. Letting criminals have them gives an unfair advantage against US.
"shall not be infringed." Enough said.
As far as a "felony" record goes here's my opinion:
Either a "felon" is reformed and returned to society as a free man, or he/she is not. Period. These selective rules for select people infringe on MY rights. If someone is "too dangerous" to be let out of prison and own a firearm, then that same person is "too dangerous" to be let out of prison.
. The 3/5 compromise, for instance, was in the original document.
No, it wasnt... That was part of a compromise in the 1840's-50,s as a result of the western expansion. It was essentially for census /tax purposes. Never as to election reasons.
Where are these stories of criminals using full auto weapons?
Yes, FA items shouldn't have restrictions. But, based on how many people cite the "shall not be infringed," as proof that any "arm" is fair game for possession, I think there probably needs to be a tweak to the 2nd, prohibiting things like say thermonuclear weapons, weaponized viruses/chemicals, and other REALLY nasty stuff.
Depends on how you define "right". Slavery was not not a constitutionally protected or enshrined right. If it was, the northern states could not have abolished it. Rather, it was a matter left to the state governments to decide.Actually it would be better stated as American citizens had the "right" to oppress citizens of which the 3/5th applied, would it not?
This.A weapon that is beyond your direct control to stop (biologicals, chemicals) I agree. A weapon that requires the resources of a State to build and maintain, I agree. But infantry fielded weapons, ALL of them, should be available to the citizens as well.
Of course there aren't many - because the laws against them are being enforced. They are rare. But many of you are saying that the law should not be enforced for this guy, the natural corollary being that they should not be enforced for anyone. If anybody could make these and sell them without fear of consequences they would no longer be rare. Making guns isn't that hard with a machine shop, and modifying existing guns for full-auto is even easier.Where are these stories of criminals using full auto weapons?
Of course there aren't many - because the laws against them are being enforced. They are rare. But many of you are saying that the law should not be enforced for this guy, the natural corollary being that they should not be enforced for anyone. If anybody could make these and sell them without fear of consequences they would no longer be rare. Making guns isn't that hard with a machine shop, and modifying existing guns for full-auto is even easier.
If this one one guy practicing civil disobedience by owning an unlicensed fully automatic weapon because he thought it was his Constitutional Right to do so, I would be much more sympathetic. But this situation isn't that. It's a guy running a criminal business for profit, not for principle.
Depends on how you define "right". Slavery was not not a constitutionally protected or enshrined right. If it was, the northern states could not have abolished it. Rather, it was a matter left to the state governments to decide.
Just because the constitution doesn't prohibit something, does not mean it makes it a right. It just means it leaves the matter to another authority to address.