Assault Weapons Are Not Protected By the Second Amendment

[TITAN308]

Why do people have such a hard-on for banning assault rifles but not pistols which kill far more people?

Just to further make it how silly they are: blunt objects (hands, feet, sticks, rocks) kill more people every year than shotguns and rifles combined. And when I say rifles, I mean everything from hunting rifles to "assault" rifles.

[Zeta333]

Why do people have such a hard-on for banning assault rifles but not pistols which kill far more people?

Assault rifles are allready banned, Assault weapons is a made up term that has next to no strict definition and people just label weapons that look scary as one.

Assault rifles are fully automatic rifles

Assault weapons are magical scary things.

[Deletedaccount1]

Just to further make it how silly they are: blunt objects (hands, feet, sticks, rocks) kill more people every year than shotguns and rifles combined. And when I say rifles, I mean everything from hunting rifles to "assault" rifles.

It's just silly partisanship and signalling. Really nothing more to it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd also add that I think rifles have a significant recreational value that should be taken into account when compared to the rather small amount of lives they end by being legal to own.

[DrStiglit]

1. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.
2. The Right to Bear Arms is meant to protect us from an oppressive government, either foreign or domestic.

I'm tired of people (Mostly the left, but often the right aswell) picking and choosing which parts of the Bill of Rights are actually rights, and which ones are privileges (Hint: They are all rights, which is why it is called the Bill of Rights).

When the 2nd Amendment was written, a weapon of war was a muzzle loading Kentucky Rifle, and most Americans owned one. All guns are weapons of war.

It's like the Bible. Just ignore the parts you don't like, preach the ones you do, and still say the whole thing is relevant..

[kail]

Why do people have such a hard-on for banning assault rifles but not pistols which kill far more people?

Cuz they look big and scary.

[TexasRules]

Fake News with a fake title. Assault weapons are non existent except to scare people who know nothing. This court's definition will get shot down fast because it's ridiculous in theory since every gun can be considered military, and who gets to decide what is military? Pandering idiots who just think they can make up definitions....we all know that is Congress' job, not the judiciary.

[Macaquerie]

All gun owners owe Obama an apology because, lo and behold, in the end he did not end up actually taking anyone's guns. And you can quit your whining now because your men's Barbies are safe for at least another four years, which ironically is terrible news for the NRA and gun manufacturers because they relied so heavily on the threat of imminent confiscation to drive sales.

[Ghostpanther]

All gun owners owe Obama an apology because, lo and behold, in the end he did not end up actually taking anyone's guns. And you can quit your whining now because your men's Barbies are safe for at least another four years, which ironically is terrible news for the NRA and gun manufacturers because they relied so heavily on the threat of imminent confiscation to drive sales.

I never felt like he was going to take mine. Thankfully the Constitution prevents him or any President from doing so. And no, Trump being President will not effect the NRA in any negative way and the manufacturers will continue to make weapons. Because there will always be scumbags who want to hurt others.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as we can ensure the people with the guns are being well regulated and trained I have no problem with it, again my concern is which people are able to purchase and use these guns.

That is already covered by laws in every state. But you do know laws are often broken or ignored. Even banning Assault weapons will be in some cases ignored. Such as the terrorists case in the California shooting and the strict gun laws in Chicago. There is no way to ensure bad people can not hurt other people. Ask the French. Germans. etc. Having laws which restrict the people from defending themselves, only makes them easier targets. Not saying common sense laws concerning weapons should never be needed. They should be.

[Darththeo]

1. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.
2. The Right to Bear Arms is meant to protect us from an oppressive government, either foreign or domestic.

I'm tired of people (Mostly the left, but often the right aswell) picking and choosing which parts of the Bill of Rights are actually rights, and which ones are privileges (Hint: They are all rights, which is why it is called the Bill of Rights).

When the 2nd Amendment was written, a weapon of war was a muzzle loading Kentucky Rifle, and most Americans owned one. All guns are weapons of war.

The Right to bear arms had nothing to do with defending an oppressive domestic government. When the Constitution was written, it did not permit a standing army and the Right to bear arms. The right to bear arms was to insure that the people were able to defend themselves and their country. You are using a MODERN interpretation of the second amendment.

---

Side note: The people who are saying rights don't come from the government but rather God or nature ... no, they come from people (including the government). It is neither god nor nature.

[bladeXcrasher]

Can you buy a nuclear submarine? I've always wanted to own one!

Not even kidding, a week-long trip on a real functional submarine has always been one of my wild dreams.

It's not the most exciting thing in the world. They reek of amine and there isn't much space.

[Rooflesstoofless]

I don't care which guns are being sold to people, since the intent of the second amendment as I understand was to ensure the people could defend themselves against oppressive/ tyrannical governments both foreign and domestic. My issue is which people are getting sold the guns, because the amendment pretty specifically applies to well regulated militias and I'm also fairly sure that a "well regulated militia" does not include every yahoo with the desire and ability to shoot at things.

Oddly enough, those are pretty much the exact qualifiers for being in a militia throughout most of US history.

[Allybeboba]

Hopefully the scotus can put an end to this nonsense. Most "assault" weapons are categorized as such because they're scary looking and nothing more. If you're going to ban them you might as well ban pistols and other rifles too.

Exactly...
Most people don't even know what an "assault rifle" really is. And that assault rifles have been illegal to purchase or trade since 1986 in the US.
"Assault weapons" is nothing more than a made up political term that did not exist prior to 1989.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do people have such a hard-on for banning assault rifles but not pistols which kill far more people?

Assault rifles are illegal. Have been illegal to purchase and "transfer" for 30+ years.
That's why the "Fast & Furious campaign" was an illegal endeavor.

[Mayhem]

It works well then for Vietnam as they beat France. Also Vietnam had the aid of other countries. It doesn't matter what happened after in the French revolution.... they still got rid of the king.....

So all you´re left with is vietnam and the reason they won was because of intel. Do you think the US are unknown to the US military as vietnam was at that time?

[Cancun]

An interesting ruling with possibly interesting implications. Thoughts?

It's the most ridiculous ruling I have ever seen on the 2nd amendment. This is the result of Obama packing the 4th Circuit.

The notion that you can't use a weapon the military uses, would negate the use of pistols, bayonets, and shovels. The idea that the founders would not have included the weapons the military uses, would have negated the use of muskets, in that time. For example, our nations first gun law required that every able bodied man own and maintain a musket.

Cases like this, are why it was so important that Hillary lose this election, even if it means we got Cheeto Jesus for 4 years.

Obviously this won't make it past a 9 member SCOTUS, and it shouldn't.

This is another example of Liberals trying to amend the Constitution, without having the public support to do so. Democracy matters. If your idea is so great, call for a Constitutional Convention. Oh wait, they can't I guess since they have no power, even at the state level.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, there is no such thing as an assault weapon. This weapon fires the exact same way a revolver does: one bullet at a time, each requiring a trigger pull.

[Nihilist74]

With the freedom speech amendment, you cant shout fire in a crowded movie house if there is not a fire because it endangers people. Civilians owning assault weapons and pistols is the same as shouting fire in the movie house when there is no fire.

[Noogai131]

With the freedom speech amendment, you cant shout fire in a crowded movie house if there is not a fire because it endangers people. Civilians owning assault weapons and pistols is the same as shouting fire in the movie house when there is no fire.

Wait, me shooting bullets at paper targets is the same as saying there's a fire and causing a panic?

Please, explain your logic and reasoning. Because I don't see ANY.

[Nihilist74]

Wait, me shooting bullets at paper targets is the same as saying there's a fire and causing a panic?

Please, explain your logic and reasoning. Because I don't see ANY.

You don't need assault rifles or pistols to shoot at targets. Allowing the public to have weapons that are designed to kill many people in a short amount of time is not safe for the rest of the public. Pistols are not safe for the public because they are easily concealed.

[Noogai131]

You don't need assault rifles or pistols to shoot at targets. Allowing the public to have weapons that are designed to kill many people in a short amount of time is not safe for the rest of the public. Pistols are not safe for the public because they are easily concealed.

"Assault rifles" make up less than 1% of all gun crime. In fact, i'm pretty sure there were less than 100 instances of deaths caused by Rifles in america per year, compared to the 10,000 people killed by guns in total. So, statistically, allowing law-abiding gun owners to own "Assault rifles" has little to no downsides whatsoever. 100 deaths out of literally millions of people and less than 100 out of TEN THOUSAND is statistically irrelevant.

You have a small point on handguns, but that fails to accept to abject reality of the United States and the already huge numbers of handguns within circulation of gang members and criminals. Not to mention the crime rate in general is pretty high, further reinforcing the idea that owning handguns as a tool for self defense as a citizen should be allowed.

If you COULD ban ALL the guns, have them removed immediately, you might be able to make a point, but you cannot. It would be literally impossible. At this stage, banning guns would just cause the criminals to have more power.

[TITAN308]

You don't need assault rifles or pistols to shoot at targets. Allowing the public to have weapons that are designed to kill many people in a short amount of time is not safe for the rest of the public. Pistols are not safe for the public because they are easily concealed.

Well you are welcome to your opinion.

I'm not going to try and change your mind because at the end of the day your opinion doesn't change anything.

So... carry on!

[Katchii]

Oddly enough, those are pretty much the exact qualifiers for being in a militia throughout most of US history.

I'm more speaking towards the "well regulated" part than the "militia" part because you're right, per the definition of militia it's just a group of people who are willing and able to serve.