Fully Automatic Glock with a 100 round magazine. Should this be legal?

So you believe that it is the only amendment in the Bill Of Rights that is a collective right and not an individual right?

 

Yes, it is clearly and expressly enumerated, in the first clause. It is the Intent and Purpose for any stipulations that follow.

 

Why do you think that all the amendments in the Bill Of Rights addresses individual rights except the 2A?

 

it is clearly and expressly enumerated, in the first clause. It is the Intent and Purpose for any stipulations that follow.

 

You are repeating yourself in an effort not to answer such a simple question. I just want to know your opinion as to why the 2A in the only amendment that pertains to the masses instead of the individual.

 

it clearly says so, in the first clause, not the second clause.

 

I am looking for an opinion. I don't care about clauses. Just want to know why you think there is one amendment regarding collective rights when all the other are individual rights.

 

And the first clause is unrelated to the second clause.

 

The Anti Gun Clack pretends to not be able to read simple English and not understand that "The People" is completely independent of the Militia, whether Organised or not.

 

Given the hoops you have to jump through to legally own one, there's no reason it should be illegal to do so.

 

doesn't mean any thing; it just worked out that way.

- - - Updated - - -

They cannot be "unrelated" in the same sentence.

 

Our framers meticulously drafted the Bill of rights. Every word means something. There is not a chance in the world that "it just worked out that way". The famous quotes by our forefathers makes it perfectly clear what their intentions were.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

There is no argument that can be made that trumps the intention of the men that created the document.

 

Separated by a comma.

 

just hearsay and soothsay. It has to be in our supreme law of the land.

the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause of our Second Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't mean anything within the same sentence. you can remove the comma and still have the same meaning.

 

So famous quotes from the men that created the document are just hearsay..... Wow you really are working hard to deny the truth. You should be Obamas press secretary.

 

why be so disingenuous. you make it seem like we are not dealing with an article of law.

the Intent and Purpose is in the first clause of our Second Amendment.

 

Those that push the 'collective' interpretation emerged in the 20th century. Reading the quotes that illustrate the thinking of the 2A framers of the time and the recorded discussions and the evolving versions of the 2A show that the Framers of the 2A did not add the 2A to the BOR to grant the RKBA, for them it already existed as an individual Right. They were concerned about the possibility that a government could potentially become tyrannical, that was a primary motivation for the Bill of Rights which served to limit the government from excersizing too much power. The Framers deliberately wanted a limited, weaker government, resting power in the hands of it's people and with the states. If anyone goes back to review the documents of the time this concern is a continually repeated topic. They knew the first steps toward securing tyrannical power would be to control free speech, outlaw privately held weapons, prevent local militias from forming (taking away the ability of states to protect themselves), conduct warrantless search and seizures of weapons and 'treasonist' writings, etc. I think none of the Framers would have predicted nor approved the centralization of power that has evolved and crept into today's government.

Those that hold the collective interpretation read the 2A in a way inconsistent with the wording and phrasing of the Constituion and the other Amendments in the BOA. Reading the opinion and arguments put forth by Scaila in the Heller vs DC in their ruling affirms the individual Right and show why the Collective view is entirely inconsistent with the other amendments and the Constituion.

At this point, even if SCOTUS, reverses its opinion and throws to the collective interpretation it won't be consistent with the original intent, but will be creating legisislation and subverting the 2A without going through the Amendment process... Basically, creating legislation from the bench... Again, something that would have the FF rolling in their graves.

 

What is disingenuous? The founders clearly have commented on their intentions of the documents they created.
Not to mention, the SCOTUS disagrees with you, so who is being disingenuous?

 

Correct. All the amendments on the Bill Of Rights address individual rights, but some people are trying to convince us that this one amendment is somehow a collective right. That doesnt make sense in light of the quotes of the men that drafted the document.

 

simple error in reasoning. Arms for the militia are declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8. Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself and cannot operate in a vacuum of special pleading.

 

how can an amendment that was intended and designed to recognize a pre-existing natural right of all free men be dependent on membership in a government regulated body?

 

I reiterate..... The men that created the document are on record as to their intention. Twist it all want, but their intention is clear and supported by the SCOTUS.

 

You cannot appeal to ignorance of the first clause. It must have some influence on the second clause, or there would be no need for it, as the first clause.

 

Its not me appealing to ignorance of the first clause.... according to you, its James Madison and the men that created the document that are ignorant.
You are appealing to ignorance of the statements of the creators of the Bill Of Rights and their outspoken intention.

 

You have nothing but propaganda and rhetoric to support your contention.

We are dealing with an article of law, not fallacies of false Cause.