Not Constitutionally they can’t. Obvious infringement, as are ALL laws that limit ownership of arms of ANY kind.
Maybe you should learn and then post. Explain why it happened in 1994. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Actually, I am not the one making the flat-out wrong, wildly incorrect misstatement, you are. So I suggest you 1. Learn U.S. history, and law, and 2. Then post.
Why did you post this comment? You must know that both of these changes came about by Amendments, The 13th and 19th?
Ah well! You just proved the point. Screw the amendment process, you guys just want it interperted as you want. Convoluted or not is not important. That will end this this discussion.
Sorry, but that's not how it works. We have 3 branches of government, not 2. The judicial branch interprets the law. Read your beloved Constitution. That's how it works. And yes, that is the end of the discussion.
A good start @MarAzul The first sentence kind if makes the rest of it moot. "fully automatic weapons" is too vague rights can be changed only at the city level? Why not at the state level? And only cities larger than 125,000 residents? So peoples rights to machine guns in smaller cities can't be infringed? I could agree with the supervote part "A majority of 66% of the voters, with at least 50% registered voters, voting, may chose to infringe on the right to certain arms or the right to arms within their geographic area." Though I don't think infringe is the right word choicr here? Then, if you live in a city where the rights to bear certain arms have been limited or discharged, then your rights to those weapons are also taken away in the rest of the state? Interesting. What if you visited a different state? Could you then just move to a different city where the law doesn't exist and keep your guns? Is there a required tine for residency in this matter? I like that you end your ammendment making sure they can't take your guns since you reside on a boat. But, what if your boat is registered in a city where such a change in the law comes in place? 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' You know before the supreme court reinterpreted the 2nd ammendment to include personal rights, this ammendment covered only the rights of militias.
>>>Not in the original intent. Perhaps in some wrong minded opinions. Pretty hard to imagine this being the case when one of the big reason colonial peoples rebelled was the confiscation of arms by the Brits. They had long established tradiition of being armed up to that point.
posts like this are where you go off the deep end Marz.....you have a far too rigid view of the approach to changes...it starts with flexibility and needs to be kept in context....I sense you have lost the complexity of modern America for nostalgic definitions....every amendment to the constitution starts with proposals and question...attacking those things gets you nowhere...applying them to the problems of the day however is ongoing....I keep trying to discuss alternatives to the status quo but really....you don't want to have those conversations....and a clue....ask questions of forum members with the ability to listen to the answers...you have an invested interest in the Constitution...you know it's changed over time....now is no different. The colonists didn't revolt because of guns...they revolted because of money being sent to crazy King George and nothing coming back in return...the founding fathers agreed to disagree while forming our country over beers in a pub for the most part...strong personality types that were smart enough to listen to each other....we should follow their example around here.....if S2OT topics were talked about it would make this place interesting...it's morphed into talking about forum members instead of topics and I guess I'm guilty of that with this post but we should put our energy into talking with each other instead of at each other so much....my 2 cents...I've got issues with current events...too bad talking about them leads to partisan posturing
He has a hard time communicating complete thoughts and he also sees things only for his purpose rather than for the good of all. If it doesn't help him personally then he is typically against it.
Don't know, but just for a trial, I thought we could give it a shot. I don't think they want an amendment. Of course, that was what I thought in the begining.
A badly drafted amendment isn't really what we want. Among other things, we need clarity, not more confusion. Let's redraft the existing 2nd in clear, modern language. Why exempt small places from the ability for self-rule? Yes, rural people are less likely to want to have gun control, but if some small town does want gun control, why shouldn't they be allowed to have it? Oh, and to go with the MarAzul provision, I guess we need a barfo provision: Pirates can have whatever arms they want up to and including nukes, and it shall be legal to fire preemptively upon any sail-powered craft within range. barfo
Go for it barf. Modify it as you see fit. If you think you can imprrove it to gain the votes needed, then have at it. If you think it helps the cause to push me off the wagon, go for it. But right now, no one is voting for it, which means, the current law will remain in effect. Ha! I think it is pretty clear, lefties do not want an amendment, no way in hell could even you get them to vote for one.
partisan posturing.....for the record I agree with your statement that it would be voted down but let's drop the team political definitions...how about ...americans will make up their own minds...some will vote...some won't..like every issue ever concerning policy
