Is it unconstitutional to put a limit on what type of arms I can purchase.?

Question

Huey N asked a question like this but actidentally put first instead of secodn ammendment and everyone made fun of him.

But answer the question why cant I but an AK-47, or RPG. And why can't felons purchase them if "my right shall not be infringed"

If it is only for the millitia why can I have them if I am just an average Joe.

Answer 1

Like with any right, it's not all-encompassing and absolute.

You also can't just parse the parts of an Amendment that you like. The context, many will argue, is that the right relates to the ability of the state to have a militia, not for individuals to arm themselves however they please.

In practical application, the right seems to be settled somewhere in between, with people at both ends of the spectrum trying to pull it to their side.

ADDENDUM: In response to you query, please note that I was not making that argument, I was saying that it is an argument that is raised. As to why, that's how militias were raised by the states - the call sent out, people grabbed their hunting rifles (a necessity back then that is no longer required to get meat for a family), and reported for duty.

The reason why you can have a gun today is because, as I already said, the legal interpretations have fallen between only for militias and unfettered ownership.

Answer 2

Good question!

My understanding of the reason for this "right" is that the founding fathers wanted to prevent tyranny by arming the ruled so the rulers would think twice before they tried to impose tyrannical rules on the ruled. But if that is true, we should be armed with rocket propelled grenades, and tanks, and shoulder fired missiles, etc.! Even that would be useless against the weaponry of any modern state! So then what's the point?

Besides, if each American citizen has the right to buy any weapon he likes, why is the U. S. of A go around the world telling countries what weapons they can and can't have? Shouldn't the same logic apply to them also?

Answer 3

Yes, it is a direct violation of the Constitutional framework regarding arms purchases to prevent you from having an assault weapon. I'm sick and tired of hearing all of this crap about what the "Founding Fathers intended". They intended it exactly as it was phrased. The only reason that some weapons are banned is because the American people allowed their rights to be stepped on. If they want to restrict weapons then they should follow the proper procedures and amend the Constitution.

Edit: 13ubbathedog- Here we go again with this "well-regulated militia" crock. A militia is comprised of armed, ordinary citizens who, if necessary, take up those arms to defend their home or nation from foreign or domestic enemies. If you think that the National guard meets that criteria you need to stop huffing Nitrous with your hippie friends.

Answer 4

I'm a member of the NRA and carry a concealed weapon (and, of course, have a right to carry license with me - and I do not believe the government should require anyone to get a right to carry license). That said, I would have a problem with somebody owning a weapon of some sort that could destroy the entire neighborhood. What if it went off by accident? If they keep the weapon away from populated areas, fine.

Answer 5

Only in the mind of imbecile gun nuts.

Read the 2nd amendment, it states quite clearly that its purpose is to maintain a "well-regulated militia". NOT to provide dangerous weapons to any yahoo old enough to hold one.

If you took the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, we all should be allowed to keep any weapon of any kind, including nuclear, biological, and conventional. This is NOT the case. The supreme court has ruled on thousands of challenges to gun-control laws, and have always held that the government has the right to regulate arms.

Answer 6

I'm ok with the felons not being able to purchase weapons esp. if they used one in their crime, but I agree that if you want to purchase a AK-47 you should be able to. I personally have no need for one but if anyone wants one they should be able to. Keeping you from buying one is the first step to taking all guns away. its a dangerous thing and people need to fight for their rights.

Answer 7

You are wrong. The Second Amendment doesn't give individuals the right to bear arms unless they are part of a well-regulated state militia. State regulation would naturally stop felons from buying any arms at all and you from buying assault weapons, for the sake of the public good.

Now, tell us what you plan to do with those assault weapons.

Answer 8

The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms.

The one thing the 2nd amendment couldn't forsee was the type of guns that would become available in today's world.

I believe we have the right to own guns (even though I don't own any), however; having restrictions on certain type firearms does makes sense.

Also, convicted felons should have restrictions placed on them because they have already shown themselves to be a danger to society.

Answer 9

Not sure about the AK-47 and RGP, but felons lose certain rights when they become felons in the attempt to protect society....same reason you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

Answer 10

Yes it is... if u go by the logic that it was in the constitution so that the population could protect themselves against the government if needed then you should be able to own Nukes and F15 just like they do...