mass murder weopons should be banned by statute

cars and planes are not analogous. these have many purposes other than killing, and AKs are built to kill only. miltias and self defense are cop outs. they're never used. your simply keep avoiding the fact that AKs actually kill more pepole and this is common knowledge, and Aks etc do not save people. the only point you could possibly make is legal arguments, as you haven't shown any policy arguemnts. which means all you have is techincal, manmade law, not again wise policy. i didn't want to get into the legality, cause it's complicated. it's clearly not "clear" but, since you insist. ------------------------------------- the constitution only prevents congress from doing things. most conservatives say, and most justices agree, that states can do what ever they want, as a starting supposition. the only way the states are regulted is through the 14th amendment which came later in our country through judicial manuevering. so even if the congress cant limit the rights to guns, that doesn't mean a state can't. a conservative should admit this just to be consistent. the only way the 2nd amendment could apply to the states is by "fundamental rights" or by incorporation. historically, fundamental rights has meant that it doesn't matter what the constitution or bill of rights says, but rather what the justices feel is fundamental. so, the argument is purely a matter of what sounds good, as far as that goes. sure, what the 2nd says as per ocngress is a good indicator, but it's not definitive, at least by precedent so far. as for incorporation, the second amendment has not been incorporated to the states, at least yet. even the second on its face is heavily disputed, rationally: *********QUOTE Another major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6] Most circuit court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia. There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.[7] Other points of disagreement include the meaning of the militia clause[8] and the meaning of infringement (does any regulation at all constitute infringement, and why have federal regulations been allowed.)[9][10] All federal courts have found that reasonable firearm regulation is allowable, while an outright firearm ban is currently the subject of Supreme Court review in District of Columbia v. Heller. *********** if the gov allows for a militia and lets them have AKs etc... but bans guns, or at least AKs... that's not without the meaning of the amendment. who should decide? rational basis and eference to the people says the people should be able to, not judicial imputing of what it thinks when it's not clear. http://www.washingtonpost.com... plus if you have the right to a pistol, that means you're carrying guns. you're not being infringed. and, to be consistant for most conservatives anyway, the right to be a militia from everyone having guns is a good argument.... but the framers never knew of AKs etc, so the burden should be on those who say AKs shoud be included. we don't have an evolving constitution, after all, right? ---------------------------- here is another quote. ********* In his 99-page article, Professor Bogus argues that the evidence—including an analysis of Madison's original language, and an understanding of how he and other founders drew on England's Declaration of Rights—strongly suggests that Madison wrote this provision for the specific purpose of assuring his constituency that Congress could not use its newly acquired power to deprive the states of an armed militia. Madison's concern, Professor Bogus argues, was not hunting, self-defense, national defense, or resistance to governmental tyranny—but slave control. The "hidden history" of the Second Amendment is important for two reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under the joint control of the federal and state governments. At the time, the southern states extensively regulated their militias and prescribed their slave control responsibilities. Second, the hidden history is important because it fundamentally changes how we think about the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder. *********** I'd bet if you were to really study the history of the second amendment, the "collective rights" argument makes most sense. As that quote would indicate. To be clearer.... look at the structure of the second amendment.... they didn't say "the people have right to bear arms" and hten later say "the people have a right to a militia" they structurd one arguably conditioned with the other. Now, it could mean what pro-complete right advocates say, but not necessarily at all. So the idea is.... if the feds are allowing the states to form militias, then the second is being satisfied. and otherwise guns can be regulated. Or, it could mean two independant ideas. Or it could mean guns were how mlitas were made and so complte restriction on the feds illegal. really, it's hogwash to say it's clear, when it's clearly not clear. i'd bet thyis is one of those amendments they had to tweak in order to get everyone to agree on it. as that link would suggest. wouldn't it be funny if the history were pretty clear that the second amendment is not what hardcore's say it is? and then they'd be forced to say that it's not clear? and not because of the obvious ambiguity in the statement itself... but because historical analysis forces that conclustion, on what should already be ambiguous text? "clearly this, clearly that.." yeah....