Assault Weapons Are Not Protected By the Second Amendment

[Dystemper]

There is already a gun control thread

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Well regulated meant well equipped and maintained. Had nothing to do with Regulations. Read the Federalist papers

[Kellhound]

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.

Funny thing, AR-15s are underpowered as far as rifles go. They are so underpowered they are generally illegal to use to hunt deer.

[TITAN308]

Well regulated meant well equipped and maintained. Had nothing to do with Regulations. Read the Federalist papers

Guess my personal armory counts. lmao

[ugotownd]

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.

We don't need whiny little bitches either yet here you are.

[TwoNineMarine]

Because they are scary looking and of the shooting sprees that has happened, Assault like rifles were used. I guess it's an easy target to go after. Offers the most feel goods.

Apparently so.

Feeling good > actually making a difference I guess

Because going after handguns, which is what actual crimes and murders normally use, is a far harder target. Assault Rifles are the lower hanging fruit on the tree. It's as simple as that. It is easier to make a case that due to the "military nature" of assault rifles that a ban is justifyable, than to make any sort of case about handguns, which have no distinct "look" to them.

Personally I'd be for allowing liberal assault rifle purchases, if we got a blanket and retroactive ban on clip-based handgun ownership. In it's place, make revolvers the only thing civilians can own... something which can only carry 6 bullets and has to be reloaded one bullet at a time.

Understood. And the fact that they are going after simply because it is the low hanging fruit comes across as even more pathetic imo.

I do disagree with the ban though on side arms. Not to mention how you'd even go about getting those weapons away from the lawful citizens let alone the criminals.

That's a whole 'nother ball game there.

[Ghostpanther]

Apparently so.

Feeling good > actually making a difference I guess



Understood. And the fact that they are going after simply because it is the low hanging fruit comes across as even more pathetic imo.

I do disagree with the ban though on side arms. Not to mention how you'd even go about getting those weapons away from the lawful citizens let alone the criminals.

That's a whole 'nother ball game there.

So true. Besides that has already been tried by some cities and it was found ( ruled ) to be unconstitutional.

[Tommi]

[Ghostpanther]

Lol! Good one.

The Arms mentioned in the Constitution has been interpreted as being firearms, but in my opinion, should apply to any "personal carry capable" weapon for self defense. With some restrictions of course.

[Allybeboba]

A gun is a gun. Whether you're shot with an AR-15 or a glock you're going to have a bad time.

I have been hit with a BB gun and lived to tell to the tale.
Paint ball gun too.

[Narwal]

An interesting ruling with possibly interesting implications. Thoughts?

9 of these courts now lean liberal after Obama. This is attempts by the circuit courts to try to set a precedent to override the Supreme Courts Heller decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller. This decision will again go up to the Supreme Court, where it will be struck down again after Trumps nominee gets in.

The technical specification they had to include to try and define a "military gun" from a "civilian gun" is pretty laughable. Manufacturers just have to tweak a few things to obsolete the technical description in this ruling and get around it.

Liberals can try as they may, but as long as a gun shoots a bullet at a time, and there is a 2nd amendment, they'll never win this battle. If you compare their strategy to "removing guns from society" to their strategy to "defeat islamic extremism", you see a confused group of people. If you believe that to defeat islamic terrorism you need to stop labeling muslims as bad people or else you'll push them into extremism, then wouldn't the way to make people want guns less be to stop trying to take them away from them? You literally create higher demand, higher sales, and more guns in the country with your crusade against them. A crusade that won't win for the next 30-40 years at least.

[TwoNineMarine]

So true. Besides that has already been tried by some cities and it was found ( ruled ) to be unconstitutional.

Yep. Exaclty.

Also I want some bear arms.

[Allybeboba]

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 - - -



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.

My explanation in case people missed it. There is a HUGE difference between "assault" weapons and "assault rifles". The nomenclature of "assault weapon" did not even exist before 1989 until it was politically expedient.

[kasuke06]

I'm not saying Piers is right...but by Carol's Logic...everyone should have the right to own nukes.

There's actually a fine on the books for detonating nuclear weapons within LA city limits. lord knows who you'd pay that to after taking a city off the map, but it's there!

[ro9ue]

But can I wield a sword?

[Daelak]

That is not how the document was written, sorry. The amendment was very careful to call it out as a right of the people, which means it applies to the same group the 1st does, and it does not say that membership in a militia is a requirement. So, either only militia members have the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government, or every person has the right to bear arms. Or perhaps you feel only militia members are covered by the 4th, 5th, 9th, or 10th as well? Those are also specifically addressing the rights of "the people".

Not that it matters because the Supreme Court has already ruled "the people" are the same in them all, and as such the 2nd is in fact a right of the general public to keep and bear arms. The only legal question at this point is what constitutes the permitted limitation on said right.

- - - Updated - - -



http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/vi...9&context=wmlr

"Although Anna Hawley's article is not about guns, she compared the frequency of common items in 221 probate inventories in Surry County, a relatively poor agricultural Virginia county, from 1690 to 1715. She notes that in this county, the staple crops-tobacco and corn-needed to be hoed several times a year, 7 yet only 34% of Surry estates list any hoes.'" Hawley found that guns were the most commonly listed of the six items she counted. In the middling to affluent groups (the 60% of estates ranked from the 30th to the 90th percentiles), there were the following percentages of these common items:
Guns (63-69%),
Tables (50-64%),
Seating furniture (40-68%),
Hoes (35-41%),
Axes (31-33%),
Sharp knives (18-20%)."

Firearms were actually fairly common in private ownership during the 1700s.

The right of the people was a qualifier to the militia, a local community's group of able-bodied men to defend the town and their local armory from attack. Again, there would be no reason to put in the militia clause in the 2a if it was solely about private gun ownership. The founders wanted local communities to have the unfettered ability to maintain their armories and keep the readiness of their militias up in order to protect their communities. This amendment should have been removed or altered after the national guard act in 1900, just like the electoral college should have been amended/removed after the confederacy surrendered at Appomattox.

Your own source derives the percentage of guns from the wealthiest people in the community; and as it being in 1715, the wealthy landowners stored the armaments for their county/town on their property. This is exactly how wealthy people got out of fighting and marching for the local militia.

[lockedout]

1. AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

Well it IS an assault weapon it IS NOT an assault rifle. Assault weapon is a liberal term to scare know nothing sheeple.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep. Exaclty.

Also I want some bear arms.

Not in California!

[Kellhound]

The right of the people was a qualifier to the militia, a local community's group of able-bodied men to defend the town and their local armory from attack. Again, there would be no reason to put in the militia clause in the 2a if it was solely about private gun ownership. The founders wanted local communities to have the unfettered ability to maintain their armories and keep the readiness of their militias up in order to protect their communities. This amendment should have been removed or altered after the national guard act in 1900, just like the electoral college should have been amended/removed after the confederacy surrendered at Appomattox.

Your own source derives the percentage of guns from the wealthiest people in the community; and as it being in 1715, the wealthy landowners stored the armaments for their county/town on their property. This is exactly how wealthy people got out of fighting and marching for the local militia.

I see you will go to any length of mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you are incorrect.

[lockedout]

The right of the people was a qualifier to the militia, a local community's group of able-bodied men to defend the town and their local armory from attack. Again, there would be no reason to put in the militia clause in the 2a if it was solely about private gun ownership. The founders wanted local communities to have the unfettered ability to maintain their armories and keep the readiness of their militias up in order to protect their communities. This amendment should have been removed or altered after the national guard act in 1900, just like the electoral college should have been amended/removed after the confederacy surrendered at Appomattox.

Your own source derives the percentage of guns from the wealthiest people in the community; and as it being in 1715, the wealthy landowners stored the armaments for their county/town on their property. This is exactly how wealthy people got out of fighting and marching for the local militia.

If it's so black and white why has it been such a problem for any court to rule on?

[TwoNineMarine]

Well it IS an assault weapon it IS NOT an assault rifle. Assault weapon is a liberal term to scare know nothing sheeple.

- - - Updated - - -



Not in California!

Lol awesome.

[cubby]

An interesting ruling with possibly interesting implications. Thoughts?

Could be fantastic. And coming from a generally conservative court, with such an overwhelming majority ruling. I hope the Court takes it up.