Bill To Ban Assault Weapons Introduced In Senate

[mdram]

Why bother, NOTHING can ever be done anyway and that is the only truth there is to this.

You can whine, you can cry, you can protest but in the end, NOTHING can ever be done because not ONE of you are willing to just do what worked in every other western nation.

So just shut the fuck up and live with your choices.

yet you still chime in with your euro liberal thoughts
you should be looking at banning things in the uk

dint your murder rate jump 15% from 2015 to 2016?

 

[J.Wilkins]

yet you still chime in with your euro liberal thoughts
you should be looking at banning things in the uk

dint your murder rate jump 15% from 2015 to 2016?

OK.

 

[fskimospy]

ok, sure, you go with that

Can you point me to the court precedent you believe indicates that Americans have a right to own an AR-15 or something similar?

 

[adairusmc]

Can you point me to the court precedent you believe indicates that Americans have a right to own an AR-15 or something similar?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

The most popular rifle platform in the United States is certainly “in common use.”

 

[Jhhnn]

No, it wouldn't. There's no established constitutional right to own those types of weapons.

ok, sure, you go with that

There's certainly no constraints against classifying such firearms as NFA weapons thus prohibiting their manufacture & sale in the retail channel.

 

[J.Wilkins]

There's certainly no constraints against classifying such firearms as NFA weapons thus prohibiting their manufacture & sale in the retail channel.

What you really need to do with that gashing wound that goes all from the top of the head and down to the tippy toes is to slap a band aid on it.

That'll fix it for sure.

 

[mdram]

There's certainly no constraints against classifying such firearms as NFA weapons thus prohibiting their manufacture & sale in the retail channel.

actually there is.

United States v. Miller

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

 

[fskimospy]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

The most popular rifle platform in the United States is certainly “in common use.”

The full quote you are referring to is this: (emphasis mine)

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

This is why some federal circuit courts have found DC v. Heller to exclude the AR-15 specifically.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Not so certain now, is it?

 

[mdram]

The full quote you are referring to is this: (emphasis mine)



This is why some federal circuit courts have found DC v. Heller to exclude the AR-15 specifically.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Not so certain now, is it?

thats why that case was asked to be reviewed by scotus
its still pending
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kolbe-v-hogan/

 

[J.Wilkins]

thats why that case was asked to be reviewed by scotus
its still pending
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kolbe-v-hogan/

God damn it you are an idiot, until it is reviewed there are no such constraints and your point was that the case introduced such constraints.

You were wrong, period.

Next up, a lenghty explanation of how you knew you were but actually weren't... I shall act oh so surprised.

 

[fskimospy]

thats why that case was asked to be reviewed by scotus
its still pending
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kolbe-v-hogan/

That doesn't matter, he was saying that an AR-15 was 'certainly' covered because it was in common use. That's not only not certain at all based on the Heller decision, one of the most powerful courts in the country decided the opposite. Does that sound certain to you?

 

[Jhhnn]

actually there is.

United States v. Miller

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

You merely quote the parts of Miller you believe favorable to your fetish for firepower. The whole militia angle fails to account for the fact that full auto weapons were suitable for militias at the time & were effectively banned nonetheless. Miller merely prohibits the possession of weapons deemed not suitable for militias. It does not expressly allow any & all that may be.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You merely quote the parts of Miller you believe favorable to your fetish for firepower. The whole militia angle fails to account for the fact that full auto weapons were suitable for militias at the time & were effectively banned nonetheless. Miller merely prohibits the possession of weapons deemed not suitable for militias. It does not expressly allow any & all that may be.

You merely quote the parts of Miller you believe are favorable for your sexual fetish of depriving fellow citizens of their Constitutional rights.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You can't reason with firepower freaks.

You can't reason with assholes that think it's perfectly acceptable to kill over 800,000 children a year based on nothing but a single Court ruling, but the Rights protected specifically under the 2nd Amendment don't really count for anything.

 

[fskimospy]

You can't reason with assholes that think it's perfectly acceptable to kill over 800,000 children a year based on nothing but a single Court ruling, but the Rights protected specifically under the 2nd Amendment don't really count for anything.

Lol, this is a particularly funny non sequitur.

GUN CONTROL?! WELL WHATABOUT ABORTION!

You never fail to bring the laughs.

 

[brycejones]

You can't reason with assholes that think it's perfectly acceptable to kill over 800,000 children a year based on nothing but a single Court ruling, but the Rights protected specifically under the 2nd Amendment don't really count for anything.

Oh look whataboutism......

Do you know you are using a Soviet propaganda technique? Why do you support commies?

 

[Genx87]

yet you still chime in with your euro liberal thoughts
you should be looking at banning things in the uk

dint your murder rate jump 15% from 2015 to 2016?

My favorite part is the UK banning guns for the most part in 1996 but gun violence peaked in 2004.

 

[fskimospy]

My favorite part is the UK banning guns for the most part in 1996 but gun violence peaked in 2004.

Are you claiming gun control doesn’t affect gun violence?

 

[Genx87]

Are you claiming gun control doesn’t affect gun violence?

I'd say there is definitely enough evidence there is a no strong correlation. Unless you can explain why banning guns in the UK saw increases in gun violence for 8 subsequent years. Why our gun laws have been liberalized since the 1980s and gun violence\death has dropped by half. Why there are instances of no gun ownership and gun crime, no gun ownership little gun crime, gun ownership and gun crime, and gun ownership and low gun crime. There is more to the story than simply banning a gun.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd say there is definitely enough evidence there is a no strong correlation. Unless you can explain why banning guns in the UK saw increases in gun violence for 8 subsequent years. Why our gun laws have been liberalized since the 1980s and gun violence\death has dropped by half. Why there are instances of no gun ownership and gun crime, no gun ownership little gun crime, gun ownership and gun crime, and gun ownership and low gun crime. There is more to the story than simply banning a gun.

If you search these forums you would see there is evidence that the correlation is very, very strong. This is nonsense.

Seriously, absolute nonsense. I think of you as someone I disagree with who I intellectually respect so I strongly encourage you to look at the data about guns and death. The evidence is strong.

 

[brycejones]

I'd say there is definitely enough evidence there is a no strong correlation. Unless you can explain why banning guns in the UK saw increases in gun violence for 8 subsequent years. Why our gun laws have been liberalized since the 1980s and gun violence\death has dropped by half. Why there are instances of no gun ownership and gun crime, no gun ownership little gun crime, gun ownership and gun crime, and gun ownership and low gun crime. There is more to the story than simply banning a gun.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/...o-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

These explanations share one thing in common: Though seemingly sensible, all have been debunked by research on shootings elsewhere in the world. Instead, an ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion.

The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

Read the article it goes into several variables.

 

[Genx87]

If you search these forums you would see there is evidence that the correlation is very, very strong. This is nonsense.

Seriously, absolute nonsense. I think of you as someone I disagree with who I intellectually respect so I strongly encourage you to look at the data about guns and death. The evidence is strong.

Hardly nonsense. For me the most striking info is our own country where gun deaths have dropped like a rock while guns laws have been relaxed. It is difficult to acknowledge gun access is the driving force behind gun violence imo. And I will head this one off as well, I am not making the claim more guns reduces violence neither. I believe there is little effect either way. And as I noted on the other page. I think gun violence is a symptom of underlying causes. A major one being the war on drugs. If we repealed the war on the drugs and saw even a modest 10% drop in gun violence\deaths. One I would think would be very low. That go a lot further in reducing gun death\violence than any cosmetic ban like the bill in this thread.

Anyways this article covers a lot of this topic rather well. Even in other countries often touted for their bans, the evidence gun bans are effective is difficult to prove.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/

 

[Jhhnn]

You merely quote the parts of Miller you believe are favorable for your sexual fetish of depriving fellow citizens of their Constitutional rights.

A fetish isn't necessarily sexual at all-

an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.
synonyms: juju, talisman, charm, amulet;

If one took a strict constructionist view of the Constitution they'd realize that the arms of the times were black powder flintlocks. It's what they were talking about because it's all they knew.

 

[fskimospy]

Hardly nonsense. For me the most striking info is our own country where gun deaths have dropped like a rock while guns laws have been relaxed. It is difficult to acknowledge gun access is the driving force behind gun violence imo. And I will head this one off as well, I am not making the claim more guns reduces violence neither. I believe there is little effect either way. And as I noted on the other page. I think gun violence is a symptom of underlying causes. A major one being the war on drugs. If we repealed the war on the drugs and saw even a modest 10% drop in gun violence\deaths. One I would think would be very low. That go a lot further in reducing gun death\violence than any cosmetic ban like the bill in this thread.

Anyways this article covers a lot of this topic rather well. Even in other countries often touted for their bans, the evidence gun bans are effective is difficult to prove.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/

No, this is nonsense. I would suggest you search my previous posts that will show research indicates gun ownership and homicide/suicide risk are strongly related. The research is not ambiguous, what you are saying is almost ceraintly wrong and it’s backed up by a lot of facts.

Absolute nonsense.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

You are missing my point, which is that measuring the effects of terrorist attacks (and I do consider these mass murders terrorist attacks!) can't be assessed just in terms of integers (i.e. the number of "lives lost"). That's linear thinking and belies a pitiful lack of imagination.

Then why does the number of gun murders get thrown in my face at every chance? Because it is the MOST IMPORTANT effect of shootings. The entire point of banning guns is to prevent innocent people from dying from guns.

These atrocities affect people, they spread fear, anxiety, create negativity. Everyone understands this. Some deny it. Are you one of them?

So we're banning guns because of fear, anxiety, and negativity? We are going to put people in jail (where they will experience MUCH WORSE than bad feelings) for buying/selling these guns...in order to prevent bad feelings? Is this what the gun banners are going with?

When this bill is passed...and when there is not even a blip in the gun murder numbers...what then? The people who wrote this bill know it will be ineffective. So why did they write it?

And just because the great majority of owners of assault weapons have never killed anyone doesn't justify their having them. They entice unstable people to commit heinous crimes. They are not essential to the well being and happiness of owners. On balance, they should not be out there. Take your "horseshit" invective and shove it up your horse ass, BTW. I do not come here to hurl insults.

People don't have to justify owning something. Government has to justify why people can't own a thing. There isn't a single reason that owning something should be predicated upon that thing being essential to the well being and happiness of owners. I'm trying really hard to understand the justification behind putting people in jail for having these things and I am either not getting it or it isn't being provided.

And I'm taking my "horseshit" invective and shoving it up my ass. You didn't deserve that.