Assault Weapons Not Protected by 2nd Amendment, Fed Appeals Court Rules a year ago :)

[Jhhnn]

From Scalia's own mouth, Skippy

You can't confuse him with the truth. He has alternative facts just like the Bundy militia.

 

[momeNt]

The overall push should be to ban or severely restrict all semi-auto firearms. Even if that happens, America will probably still be a slaughterhouse. In general, Americans seem to be a violent hateful people. Far more so than rest of the first world.

Couldn't agree more with this. I wish people understood the cultural significance behind violence as opposed to blaming it on something "else". We as Americans need to take responsibility for our actions, not expect laws to fix it.

 

[Zorba]

And aside from well publicized mass shootings, most armed murders are done with handguns. By that logic all handguns should be banned/restricted. As despicable as these mass shootings are, assault rifle ban is nothing more than a feel good measure that hides the problem from the view. Say you ban these so-called assault rifles, say these assault weapon mass shootings go away. Say you saved 100 lives per year, now you infringed on the 2A of millions of law abiding gun owners, and you did nothing to address 15,000 handgun murders.

The assault weapon ban is treating the symptom instead of curing the cause. I'd rather see us talking universal healthcare which would provide way to address mental issues for everybody, I'd rather have us find a way to improve economic situation of the lower class as well as end war on drugs which would help with gang violence, I'd rather stop the divisive rhetoric that breeds violence against each other. But no, instead we'll just put a band aid on the problem and call it done. Thanks, but no thanks. That is not the right approach to the current problem.

I don't really disagree with anything you said, except random mass killings are different than targeted murders of a couple people. Just as the Boston bombs were different than a train crash that had similar casualties. What is the average number of people killed bombs in one year? Way less than from ARs, yet they are illegal.

I agree with you that the political capital is probably spent better elsewhere, like better background checks, raising minimum age of purchase, and better mental health care. However, for mental healthcare to actually be successful, people have to want it, so I really don't think it is end all be all either.

 

[fleshconsumed]

The problem is that gun advocates frequently treat the situation as if you can't apply that Band-Aid and address the root causes. Like you're supposed to leave a wound gushing blood while you perform surgery on it.

That and, of course, many of the people who are staunch gun advocates are also against the social fixes: they hate universal health care, revel in hurting low-income families and support an Attorney General who wants to escalate the war on drugs like it's 1987. They create the social problems and refuse to deal with the consequences.

It's kind of funny when you think about it: no matter what, a real solution to gun violence invariably means voting for Democrats. The Republicans as they are today have no interest whatsoever in fixing the situation.

I pretty much agree with you on everything, but I think your analogy is wrong, assault weapons ban is exactly like applying band aid to a gashing wound - it's not going to help. Banning assault rifles won't stop a mentally ill person from using handguns like in Virginia Tech shooting, it won't stop 15,000 murders due to gang violence, and it won't stop 15,000 suicides. It literally is the most useless political gesture ever. I'd rather reduce gun violence by having universal healthcare which would provide mental illness treatment to everybody, I'd rather end war on drugs, and provide better social nets and economic opportunities for lower class.

You may be right that it would take democrats to meaningfully solve the issue. I truly believe it's a societal issue and if we want to fix the gun violence we have to fix the societal fabric first. Maybe the threat of democrat legislators/democratic SCOTUS banning assault weapons will finally incentivize republicans to address the root issues instead of symptoms if they do not want their guns taken away. However, what I think is most likely to happen is they'll go obstructionist/divisive route again.

 

[HomerJS]

Couldn't agree more with this. I wish people understood the cultural significance behind violence as opposed to blaming it on something "else". We as Americans need to take responsibility for our actions, not expect laws to fix it.

I kinda think with that logic we wouldn't have laws against murder. Holding someone responsible for their actions does no good for the people that were killed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Unfortunately - the 2nd amendment states very clearly - an armed "militia". Militia is a term for military armed soldier. So ya, it doesn't state the right for an armed farmer, hunter, not sportsman, etc. So, as weird as it sounds the second amendement clearly protects ALL GUNS (weapons) used for war - period. The government or anybody else cannot ( judges, presidents, etc.) pick and choose which gun, which clip, which scope,etc. So, to legally change this a constitutional amendment would need to be passed. So, lets get to it.

That's not true at all. We classified some weapons as destructive devices not intended for civilian use long ago & we can extend that definition to cover others as well.

 

[Commodus]

I pretty much agree with you on everything, but I think your analogy is wrong, assault weapons ban is exactly like applying band aid to a gashing wound - it's not going to help. Banning assault rifles won't stop a mentally ill person from using handguns like in Virginia Tech shooting, it won't stop 15,000 murders due to gang violence, and it won't stop 15,000 suicides. It literally is the most useless political gesture ever. I'd rather reduce gun violence by having universal healthcare which would provide mental illness treatment to everybody, I'd rather end war on drugs, and provide better social nets and economic opportunities for lower class.

You may be right that it would take democrats to meaningfully solve the issue. I truly believe it's a societal issue and if we want to fix the gun violence we have to fix the societal fabric first. Maybe the threat of democrat legislators/democratic SCOTUS banning assault weapons will finally incentivize republicans to address the root issues instead of symptoms if they do not want their guns taken away. However, what I think is most likely to happen is they'll go obstructionist/divisive route again.

I think it would help a bit. It wouldn't stop mass shootings, but it would minimize the damage from those shootings. The Las Vegas shooter wouldn't have killed 58 (and injured hundreds more) with a handgun.

And to some extent, the problem is that Republicans freak out at the very mention of gun control, whether it's weapons bans or stricter checks. They censor CDC gun violence research because they know it will support tougher gun regulations. It's much in the same way as the Trump administration censors climate science -- they're pretending the problem will go away by refusing to talk about it. They could end up with stricter controls than they'd like simply because they won't consider even the slightest compromise.

 

[glenn1]

What is the average number of people killed bombs in one year? Way less than from ARs, yet they are illegal.

Don't know how many are killed by bombs, it may not even be a category in the mortality tables. And bombs aren't illegal, they're regulated and require user licenses like many other restricted products. We use "bombs" for everything from building demolition, mining, oil drilling/exploration, and tons of other uses. It's of course illegal to use a bomb to kill others just as it's illegal to use a firearm to do the same (absent self-defense or other legal defenses that aren't really open for use of bombs).

I think it would help a bit. It wouldn't stop mass shootings, but it would minimize the damage from those shootings. The Las Vegas shooter wouldn't have killed 58 (and injured hundreds more) with a handgun.

It wouldn't eliminate as you said but could help depending on circumstances. The Vegas shooter was about 40 yards and 32 floors up from his targets. Army manual says max range of an M9 pistol (Beretta M92) is about 1,800m. So definitely within range and if you're shooting at an area target like a huge field and not worried about pinpoint accuracy then a handgun would have still been deadly enough. Using a long gun would have certainly made each shot more accurate and have a higher percentage of being lethal, this is true however.

 

[mdram]

Don't know how many are killed by bombs, it may not even be a category in the mortality tables. And bombs aren't illegal, they're regulated and require user licenses like many other restricted products. We use "bombs" for everything from building demolition, mining, oil drilling/exploration, and tons of other uses. It's of course illegal to use a bomb to kill others just as it's illegal to use a firearm to do the same (absent self-defense or other legal defenses that aren't really open for use of bombs).

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/report/2015usbdcexplosiveincidentreportpdf/download
total of 400
bombing
incidents were reported in 2015
, a decrease of nearly 38 percent from last year
; 178
of the
400
bombings targeted Residential
structure
s. Additionally, t
here were 6 reported church
bombings
, 6 school bombings and 1
2 reported bombing incidents where businesses and office
locations were targeted.
During
201
5, bombings
were responsible for causing 16 injuries and 0 deaths.

 

[momeNt]

I kinda think with that logic we wouldn't have laws against murder. Holding someone responsible for their actions does no good for the people that were killed.

It was a bastardized version of a Reagan quote.

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

 

[IJTSSG]

You can't confuse him with the truth. He has alternative facts just like the Bundy militia.

That's not the only thing Scalia said in that ruling you fucking retards. Read the entire thing. Here's a couple hints: "restriction vs ban", "in common use"

 

[Roger Wilco]

And demonstrates my point that Americans in general are shitty human beings.

This doesn't appear to be an empirical observation. It demonstrates that you extrapolated murder data to make an emotional point.

You think Americans in general are shitty human beings. Just leave it at that.

 

[Sunburn74]

Had the people of Venezuela had a 2nd amendment right, their government would have never been able to starve them.

Viva La Revolution!

Yes. All revolutions have required the populace to be armed with guns...

In addition the arming of a population correlates directly with how functional their government is and with public sentiment and satisfaction with their ruling parties...

(Both of these statements should be read with extreme sarcasm)

 

[brycejones]

That's not the only thing Scalia said in that ruling you fucking retards. Read the entire thing. Here's a couple hints: "restriction vs ban", "in common use"

You should post where you get your talking points about Heller from because given your low brow engagement here I find it difficult to imagine you reading an actual SCOTUS opinion beginning to end.

 

[Bird222]

That's not true at all. We classified some weapons as destructive devices not intended for civilian use long ago & we can extend that definition to cover others as well.

Did you know you can own "destructive devices"?

 

[Thebobo]

Thank you. Anti 2A people need to get to work on a constitutional amendment.

Stop with the Anti 2 a Bullshit.

 

[Thebobo]

I don't really disagree with anything you said, except random mass killings are different than targeted murders of a couple people. Just as the Boston bombs were different than a train crash that had similar casualties. What is the average number of people killed bombs in one year? Way less than from ARs, yet they are illegal.

I agree with you that the political capital is probably spent better elsewhere, like better background checks, raising minimum age of purchase, and better mental health care. However, for mental healthcare to actually be successful, people have to want it, so I really don't think it is end all be all either.

But I could use a bomb to defend myself no"??

 

[Thebobo]

That's not the only thing Scalia said in that ruling you fucking retards. Read the entire thing. Here's a couple hints: "restriction vs ban", "in common use"

Sorry you're wrong and I'm not even going to call you fucking retard. Why? Because you know if you wanted to really get you post across calling someone a "fucking retard" is the exact opposite way of doing it.

Now that you have read my post I can call you a fucking retard if I wanted to.



.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Sorry you're wrong and I'm not even going to call you fucking retard. Why? Because you know if you wanted to really get you post across calling someone a "fucking retard" is the exact opposite way of doing it.

Now that you have read my post I can call you a fucking retard if I wanted to.



.

he's not wrong, but he is lazy AF.

from Wiki (my bold for emphasis)

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

while the criteria of "in common use" is not objective by any means, if any firearm were to be deemed "in common use", it would almost certainly be the AR-15 by a large margin. it is the most popular rifle sold in america - https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/health/ar15-rifle-history-trnd/index.html

the AR-15 is legal for hunting purposes. at least looking at CA and TX hunting law, deer must be taken with a centerfire rifle, which would apply to most AR-15s. Common AR-15 calibers are .223 and 5.56 (centerfire), less common but readily available is .22LR (rimfire), and arguably even less common are 9mm AR's (centerfire..but probably not desirable for hunting). I'm sure someone else more knowledgeable can chime in with even more details and or clarifications.

And besides, specifically banning the AR-15 is kinda silly. Why? because someone can grab a Mini-14 instead and do the same thing. even if all AR-15's disappeared overnight.

It's almost like trying to kill a torrent site - another one just pops up in its place, because the root cause of the problem was not addressed at all to begin with.

so until we address the root cause, this can still happen. that being said, preventative action is not necessarily bad. we shouldn't make perfect the enemy of good.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-alternative-ar-15-cartridges-and-calibers/

Better hunting cartridges.

• .300 Blackout
• 6.5 Grendel
• 6.8 SPC
• .458 SOCOM
• .50 Beowulf

 

[glenn1]

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-alternative-ar-15-cartridges-and-calibers/

Better hunting cartridges.

• .300 Blackout
• 6.5 Grendel
• 6.8 SPC
• .458 SOCOM
• .50 Beowulf

What’s wrong with the more typical .308, 30/06, 7mm Rem. or .270 Win?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What’s wrong with the more typical .308, 30/06, 7mm Rem. or .270 Win?

They don't fit in the AR15 platform.

 

[glenn1]

They don't fit in the AR15 platform.

Ok gotcha, AR-15 wouldn’t be my first choice for hunting use anyway but understand where you’re going with this now.

 

[rommelrommel]

AR10 sized action can accept 308 length cartridges, to go to 30/06 length requires a yet longer action.

 

[glenn1]

AR10 sized action can accept 308 length cartridges, to go to 30/06 length requires a yet longer action.

Not that familiar with the build options for the AR platform. Besides my time in the military the only rifle I’ve used is a cheap .17 for the odd fox or coyote who might attack pets and never needed it for that purpose. Having sent countless rounds downrange through the AR platform while “on the clock” I really have no desire to own one now. It’s like the Toyota Tercel of gun platforms, bland and lowest common denominator/idiot proofed for the masses.